I'm not a Rails fan. I've overseen the development of about a dozen medium sized Ruby web apps in my career and Sinatra gets us up and going much faster. Also,

I'm not a Rails fan. I've overseen the development of about a dozen medium sized Ruby web apps in my career and Sinatra gets us up and going much faster. Also, the relative lack of magic compared to Rails makes uptake for new team members 10x quicker. With that stated, this article is pretty weak on substance for such a provocative title. I am tempted to flag it as sensational link-bait but Rails discussion is about as on-topic as it gets for HN so I'll resist. Anyway, the article fails to demonstrate "Why Nobody Should Use Rails". The concurrent requests issue is a valid criticism but that's about the only substantive claim in the article. People should use Rails when it's the right tool for the job. In my experience, Rails shines in situations when there isn't a strong architectural lead managing the project. Rails is very opinionated so it forces disparate developers into a more cohesive application structure where you'd normally end up with a spaghetti-code special. *edit: I was unaware of this but comments suggest Rails has supported concurrency for a long while, it was just off by default.