Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

> 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-...

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... 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".

> Completely agree with the author. mvc3 and razor are fantastic to use.

Then use it by all means. But mvc3 and razor can be awesome without the flamebaiting.

.NET tooling can't compete with any unix + ruby tooling. I use .NET everyday I work with NuGet & co and it stinks. It is miles away from being mature and robust (even with VS2012).

I was a RoR dev before and loved it, now I just hate .NET at work because of it's OS (Windows) and tools (VS, NuGet, MSBuild...). We don't use MVC though.

The MS stuff is good and getting better. Still, it's a (sometimes expensive) tarpit that is difficult to free yourself from. Better to not get involved in the first place, imho.