The economics of programming languages point to Rails being significantly better than what went before it.

I got to thinking about this when reading a comment on a site I like to read, which said:

Rails in itself is, to me, not that impressive. It does a lot of things right, but it does probably just as many wrong. Not the least of which is scaling.

It seems that these sorts of “after the fact” “I know better” comments are a dime a dozen in the world of programming discussions. It’s easy to come along after something’s been built and puff yourself up by pointing to defects in existing systems and show that, therefore, by comparison, you’re a clever fellow.

That’s not my point, though – what I wish to explain is that yes, Rails really was that much better than what was around before it came onto the scene:

“Switching costs” between languages are high. Less so for really sharp programmers, but for the masses that use one or two languages, learning a new language, tools, deployment, etc… is a big step to take, with potentially high risks. Even most A-list programmers I know use a few languages at a time – it’s simply easier if you’re not tripping over your own feet by switching to a different system every day. “Flow” is easier to attain when you’re ensconced in the thinking of one language. For companies, this effect is magnified, and switching to something new is not done lightly.

Since companies are beginning to explore Rails, successfully, I might add, you have to conclude that the big step into the unknown was worth it for some reason. Especially considering that a number of other languages rushed to copy various nice aspects of Rails, lessening the need for users of those systems to consider taking the leap.

Of course, that’s not to say it’s a perfect system, without reproach, or has no negative aspects, but in the spirit of honesty, and credit where credit is due, Rails really did move things a step forward, and the willingness of people to incur high switching costs to obtain its benefits is strong evidence of that.