I get the impression their plan is so grandiose that it probably won't ever reach a completed form... The context they've added to wikipedia is neat, but what would they do to present a site I made a week ago? Are they adding this extra context only to the popular sites? Framework based, perhaps?
I think I'd want context for all sites, or not at all. I prefer consistency over occasional glitz.
Hmm... point taken. Maybe this deserves an Ask YC, but what is the general opinion of naming companies in an quasi-arrogant fasion. Powerset seems like a cocky name compared to Google, which is even mispeled making me think they're humble.
To bluntly say no suggests you're passionate on the topic and therefore not objective. The author suggests that ajax has it's uses but the abuses of ajax are what's on the way out.
"My quarrel lies in the fact that many web designers and developers choose to <strike>abuse</strike> overuse this technology to the point of stupidity."
The article complains about overuse, overuse is the opposite to "on the way out", so "No" is the correct answer to the question in the title.
Your first point is more interesting to me though. You say that he is "passionate" and therefore not "objective", to imply that we shouldn't listen to him. That idea worries me. I want to hear from people who are passionate, who care about what they are talking about. Thought experiment: if "only ambivalent people may have an opinion" and ambivalent people can't be bothered to have opinions, how many opinions will we be left with?
My point was more that he dismissed the viewpoint right away because it disagreed with something he was passionate about. I still think "no" is the wrong answer because both of you are responding to a question the article doesn't propose. The title was an eye-catcher. The article was about the hype dissipating.
And of course, because I'm not super enthusiastic my post is downmodded. The community on YC is alarmingly sensitive...
I don't think Django was inspired by Rails, but I could be wrong. CakePHP definitely was. In fact, I learned CakePHP by watching Ruby on Rails screencasts because I couldn't get RoR installed on a VPS way back when, while CakePHP installed effortlessly, yet didn't have many good tutorials.
Which means what? I'm pretty sure they didn't know or care about one another when they were used privately. I'm not arguing which one was more influential.
It's funny how obsessed some people become with languages and frameworks, and how people using 'in vogue' ones are applauded, whilst those using perfectly capable but 'out of vogue' ones are looked down upon.
I agree though, I think the "This is the best thing since sliced bread" phase is over for rails.
I'm of the opinion that TechCrunch knows a thing or two about technology. But writing sensationalist headlines and then attracting all the loons to come out and post comments about Rails suck and so on...
My point is this: some people look to TC as an authority now and when the articles and comments reflect one perspective on something it's going to sway some people.
I don't have specific links. It's more of a vibe over the past few months of reading reddit and this site. Ruby, in general, seems to be getting put aside. BUT, what would i know?!
I think it's just the honeymoon is over and people are looking at it a bit more objectively then a year ago when all the Web 2.0 fashionistas were gobsmacked over it.
Don't get me wrong, I like Rails and it's a great framework as long as you keep in mind its warts, but there was a period of about 8 months where Rails was the Second Coming of Christ in web app framework form...
I use PHP for basic stuff where I don't care much about performance or anyone else maintaining it. It's installed on pretty much every web host and it's easy enough to whip stuff up in. I haven't done a big web site in a long time, but I can't imagine using anything other than Python for it.
I think I'd want context for all sites, or not at all. I prefer consistency over occasional glitz.