not really. Lots of people have shouted this..it was before RSS and blogging so the megaphone and recording devices were not on. I'm sure I'm not the only one

not really. Lots of people have shouted this..it was before RSS and blogging so the megaphone and recording devices were not on. I'm sure I'm not the only one. When Java started taking off with J2EE, I tried really hard to let the majors (Sun, IBM, Netscape, Microsoft, BEA) understand how their monolithic frameworks were not what most users needed. It all fell on deaf ears to the tune of: "What, EJBs are too complex? Swing shouldn't bypass native UI controls?" This not just from the architects inside those big co's, but from the users that would believe anything a big co told them. It took a full decade of users to experience how poorly conceived these frameworks were before DHH had a stage to stand on. Timing is everything. Users had to go through this severe disillusionment before anything like Rails could have every been accepted. If it wasn't DHH, it would have been someone else. Its the message and timing of it, not the messenger that is generally more important. Also, do not get me wrong. I'm actually not a Rails fan nor a serious opponent of it, use what works for you. Rails only gets half the equation right in my opinion. Rails too severally bastardizes MVC and lacks quality internals (hopefully Rails 3 will change some of this). What Rails does right is the accessibility of its APIs/DSLs, convention over configuration, etc...btw, all been done before the dark cloud of Java rolled onto the scene. Just goes to show how starved the web dev world was to flock to only half a solution. Turns out this was exactly the half of the equation they were starved for.