This is from the first page of the latest Ruby on Rails article on the O'Reilly website:
"In this short time, Rails has progressed from an already impressive version 0.5 to an awe-inspiring, soon-to-be-released version 1.0 that managed to retain its ease of use and high productivity while adding a mind-boggling array of new features."
Come on! I don't know Curt Hibbs, and I have nothing against him, but this intro is positively ludicrous. How is this supposed to be "awe-inspiring?" Does he think that before Rails we had no object/relational mappers, no code generation, no MVC, no test scripts, no dynamic languages? You'd have to ignore an awful lot of web development tools (that pre-date Rails) to think that.
But he does seem to think that. A little further down the page he says this:
"The typical development cycle for testing a change to a web app has steps such as configure, compile, deploy, reset, and test."
In what world is that "typical"? The only web development tool in use these days with a compile step is Java, and if you look at web development as a whole, there are more people NOT using Java than using it.
It's also not a very accurate list. Even Java apps don't require reconfiguration every time you change your code! And Rails doesn't remove the "test" step.
Most of the writing about Rails that I've seen seems to have blinders on when it comes to anything other than Java. It would be nice to see some acknowledgment that other dynamic languages already have this stuff, and a little more touch of reality in general. The current tone smacks of ego and arrogance. I don't see anything wrong with trying to draw in Java converts, but if the plan is to just ignore PHP, Perl, and Python, they're losing out on an awful lot of potential allies.