Hacker News Reader

I know the author emphasizing a point, but the steps that he's described end with two vastly different results:

1 - A php script on a server with a script with some code on it.

vs

2 - A full featured MVC framework, complete with version control, database integration, easy deployment, which is easy for other developer to jump into, etc etc

How can these two options be equated?

View on HN

A lot (a majority?) of websites aren't made by people that need those things. A lot of people just want to get their ideas up on a page so they can show their friends. The thing I walked away with from the article was that PHP is still active in part because it has such a low entry point for those people, where as Rails does not.

Like you said, they're very different entities, but a lot of people can't tell or don't care about the difference.

i'm personally learning to love static html again. the longer i can get away without a users database the better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com