> I can use default project templates that are included in Visual Studio, download starter projects from the web, or, if I prefer, start with a completely empty

> I can use default project templates that are included in Visual Studio, download starter projects from the web, or, if I prefer, start with a completely empty solution and use Nuget to cherry-pick functionality that other developers have made available. It's not about just the templates(I have personally never used one). Rails has useful code generation(scaffold, controller, model, migration). I would rather not type what I can generate. This isn't something you can solve with project templates. How is this a myth that you can bootstrap a project faster using Rails? Here, take this: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html#creating-a-resource http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html#creating-... Show me how I do the "10 minutes blog" in your framework of choice. > Myth 2: It's Easier to Manage Packages Rails Great. Good on them for realizing adding assemblies using Visual Studio dialogs is a fucked up way to manage dependencies. > Myth 3: It's Better to Develop with RoR Because it's Open Source It's better to develop with RoR because it's open source, and when something breaks or I need to augment, I don't need to wait for my overlords. > If your personal opinion or corporate agenda is that it's "better" to develop on OSS solutions, then good on you. It's neither. How hard is it to understand that black boxes are a pain? > Myth 4: I Get More Options for View Engines/I'm not Limited by Microsoft View Engines > First of all...what limitations? The Razor view engine â the default for MVC â is likely one of the best view engines around right now. And how is razor one of the best? http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/views/introduction-to-razor-syntax http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/views/introduction-to-razor... This looks like another run of the mill template engine. > Maturity isn't dictated by age, and what is really important is how comfortable you are with your tools. Maturity of a framework is independent of how comfortable you are with it. > but it doesn't mean you can dismiss VS for what it is Umm. RoR isn't an IDE. What has RoR's maturity got to do with VS? If you want to talk about tooling, please do, but how does RoR's tooling the same as RoR maturity? > You're likely to find just as many bad questions, answers, arguments and features in any language, if you look hard enough. Are you seriously positing all languages have same amount of activity and features? > I know exactly where my models go. And my views. And helpers. And filters. And I am least interested in learning a new project layout every time I work on a different project. You know your project layout - I don't and I am not interested in learning it. The point of a standardized layout is "it's more clear where things go".