I'm not surprised that this conclusion was reached after trying to use Rust for a web development project. Rails' is what people are going for when they choose

I'm not surprised that this conclusion was reached after trying to use Rust for a web development project. Rails' is what people are going for when they choose it, not Ruby (generally speaking... there are obviously people who like Ruby). Rails provides all of the tooling, conventions, and ecosystem needed to tackle a great deal of web development projects. Rails is a great example of a killer application. People learned Ruby just so they could use Rails. Wanna make a bread-and-butter website, just build it in Rails. Three-quarters of what you need is available in the framework itself and most of everything else is a library that integrates seamlessly with the framework. If you need to use a systems-level language to solve a technical problem, you'll know exactly why you need to go through the trouble. If you're using maxims to justify your choice, you have no idea. "Because it's blazingly fast," doesn't matter if -- as the TFA points out -- your most heavily-trafficked endpoint is serving a p90 of < 400ms, your team is delivering the features you need on time, and your users are happy. I think there are lots of good reasons to use a Rust-based framework. I work in Haskell full time. I get it. But there are huge trade-offs. The most obvious one is that almost no SaaS or open-source components you use will ship Rust or Haskell SDKs. They will ship libraries that integrate with Rails.