One thing that is not clear from your site, that I think should be, is that the code discussions need to happen over unconventional Rails design patterns. DHH was saying he was willing to ping pong on the original discussion thread over a design pattern in a submitted article that he thought was an unnecessary abstraction.
Most of the designs that DHH doesn't like are from complicated applications that need to deviate from The Rails Way.
I built my e-commerce business with Rails/ActiveRecord back in 2006, when rails was at version 0.7.
For the first few years, I followed rails conventions religiously. There's a point where you have to outgrow them. And that legacy approach is a major pain now. Having a class that wraps a database table and contains all the functionality that accesses that table doesn't scale at a certain point.
But I'm not going to try to show those pains in under a couple hundred lines of code that someone can understand in an hour. Anything that can be compressed to that point doesn't need a complicated design.
"If this is a poor example, pick a good example. I'll be happy to code ping pong you whatever example you choose." -DHH
HN comments are not exactly the best place to review code side by side. I'm glad he is participating and I'm looking forward to the comparisons
Would that work as a basic infrastructure for discussion? Otherwise - how would you see it?