Rails Bigwig Rails on Rails Community

Zed Shaw, creator of the popular Mongrel HTTP daemon / library, has decided it was high time to tear into the Ruby/Rails community for many different complaints that he has been collecting over the last few years. "Rails is a Ghetto" is Shaw's self-proclaimed exit strategy from the Rails community. "This is that rant. It is part of my grand exit strategy from the Ruby and Rails community. I don't want to be a 'Ruby guy' anymore, and will probably start getting into more Python, Factor, and Lua in the coming months. I've got about three or four more projects in the works that will use all of those and not much Ruby planned. This rant is full of stories about companies and people who've either pissed in my cheerios somehow or screwed over friends. I can back all of them up from emails, IRC chat logs, or with witnesses. Nothing in here is a lie unless it's really obviously a lie through exaggeration, and there's a lot of my opinion as well."

Comments

Re:Still no job?

[MightyMartian]

And then, just when you think you couldn't find a person more pathetic and worthless than the stupid ranting tit, you came along to prove that no matter how low someone sinks, there is someone else willing to go a little lower.

Do you have multiple personality disorder?

[spun]

How can you deny what you wrote?

You said: "Hey Zed: I could hurt you."

You are so out of touch, it is scary.

Re:Don't threaten people on your company's web sit

[spun]

Because it is. Sorry, there's no nicer way to put it. Saying you could hurt someone is pathetic and childish. Calling someone pathetic and childish is not the same as saying you could hurt them.

Re:Don't threaten people on your company's web sit

[pudge]

A threat would be saying that I *would*, rather than *could*, hurt him, which I absolutely did not do. You don't understand why this is threatening? Oh, I am sorry for confusing you. Let me explain again. I do understand why it is, in fact, not threatening. Does that help?

If I "casually" mentioned that I know where you live and that I used to be a firefighter and know how to get away with arson and that I think you're somebody whose family deserves to suffer, you wouldn't think that was threatening? It depends on the context. For example, I COULD take that as an actual threat right now. But from the context, it seems quite clear that you are merely making a point. Which is precisely what I did.

I understand what you're saying - you said you could hurt him, not that you would. No. In fact, I did not say I could hurt him. I was only TALKING like I could hurt him. He said, fuck people if they think they could talk to him like they could hurt him. To show how stupid he was being, I did precisely that: I talked to him like I could hurt him. I was not, in fact, saying I could hurt him. Those are the words I used, of course, but that is not the meaning I gave to those words, just like you used words like "arson" but did not, in fact, give meaning to those words such that you would actually commit arson.

What I am saying is that communication between human beings is not precise like code. Which is also, in part, what I am saying to Zed. He says, stupidly, that the "best part" about ripping on people is that he is legally allowed to do so, and their only recourse is to write about it. And then he says he would fight them if they wanted to, which shows there are, in fact, other recourses available. I simply showed how stupid he was being by telling people they couldn't talk to him like they could hurt him, and virtually sticking the logical knife in by telling him his only recourse to my use of the language he said I shouldn't use is to write about it, throwing his own words back at him.

That's the saddest part about all of this: if I end my post saying that his only recourse is to write about it, then doesn't that make it totally obvious that I am not actually talking about using force? Come on, people.

You did not say that you would hurt him, but the implication was clear. No, sorry, that is entirely false. There was no such implication whatsoever. And you even agree with me on that:

Obviously, I don't think you have any intention of hurting him. Then you just contradicted yourself: to imply requires intent. So you are saying here that, obviously, I did not imply I would hurt him.

Try that kind of crap in the real world and you get beaten up and/or slapped with restraining orders and/or worse. No, in fact, it doesn't. In the real world people are much more sane.

Although, it does bring to mind an incident when I was about 10 years old. The local bully was on my baseball team, and he was looking around at all his teammates, and saying, "I could beat you up, and you, and you," and I made some snarky comment to him. I turned my head and he sucker-punched me. What a loser he was. Anyone can beat anyone up if you fight dirty. I imagine he's probably in prison today.

See, most people take words to be mere words. Most people don't assume someone saying "I could beat you up" means you actually would try to. In this idiot's case, he did mean it, and he had to wait until I wasn't looking to try. But merely saying it -- unless, like him, you have a history to back it up -- simply will not justify legal action. Even if you meant it, which I quite clearly did not.

As to getting beaten up, hell, most people wouldn't bother trying, and those that would, shrug. I can't control what other people do.

What a poor image you project for your employer! Well, you were incorrect in most of the rest of what you wrote, so I don't think I'll consider this to be reasonable, either. No offense.

Re:Why feed the trolls?

[Marcos Eliziario]

Hi Zed! Is it you?
I am happy for you that you finally left ruby for a real macho language: perl.

Re:It's sad that this will reflect on Ruby itself

[Goldberg's Pants]

Hey, I'm quite proud of the fact I know what Ruby is but haven't the foggiest what Rails is. Clearly whatever marketing train there is didn't stop at my station...