I don't agree that it lacks substance, the conclusion, and also the conclusion that I have made according to rails is that it's "good enough" for almost any web project. It's safe to have it as a default choice. There's a good community, fantastic libraries, constant innovation, and people are really happy developing with it.

The notion that there's nothing wrong in choosing rails -- is now acceptable mainstream. Even the hard ass Java developers at my work can acknowedge that yes, it speeds up development to use a field tested full-stack framework instead of rolling your own framework for every project. (Only recently did we come to a truce, and now I can refrain for a while to try to push even wackier frameworks on them like some Clojure based ones, because Rails is good enough for me )

For the record, you're preaching to the choir. I'm a Ruby/Rails developer, and I'm quite happy about it.

I was only intending to comment that titling an article "Rails won" without qualification, or without clearly making a decisive argument, lacks substance, in my opinion. It's an anecdotal piece with which I sympathize, but that perhaps would have been better titled "Rails won again", which would elicit thoughts of Rails being chosen over other frameworks (and CMSs, in this case) in a particular project, as opposed to Rails winning some epic arms race.

I probably just should've kept the last line of that last comment to myself. :-)

That's exactly what the author is not saying. The other frameworks were better for them, he says. They didn't like Rails.

But Rails has the most industry and community support. And since nobody plans to write all the code themselves, that matters more than almost anything else.