Umm...pointing to facts based on real data isn't bitter. Did you see even look at the graph that was shared? It's pretty clear ruby is trending downward and I say this as a past long-time ruby advocate and fan.

I think that you're conflating correlation with causation. I think it's more plausible to assume it was the early numbers that are skewed and non-representative.

The fact that GitHub itself was is a killer app of the Ruby on Rails, and that the Rails project itself changed to being hosted on GitHub somewhat very early on it's history [1] had a disproportionate effect on the early community that gathered there.

Now GitHub attracts a much more diverse portfolio of projects, so the numbers you see there are less statistically biased towards early Ruby on Rails adopters.

[1] Commit history on the main branch of rails/rails via github goes as far as Apr 10, 2008 https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/c67e985994362290308073...

Even github is moving off ruby. Their search tool was re-written in golang and rust, cutting their server costs in half.

> Realistically, most applications will never need to scale up. So what's wrong with a nice framework that allows people to just get stuff done?

I've coded with Rails since Rails 3.

There are a few issues with rails:

1/ DHH never gets JS right. CoffeeScript, Asset pipeline, and now the new Turbo. Migrating your FE every 3-5 years to a new language stack is the opposite of "get stuff done"

2/ Rails is built for b2b apps (Basecamp). If your business looks like basecamp, then the conventions will work for you, but if it doesn't (think b2c apps), it won't. Examples: ActiveStorage was a mess with no CDN support (it is better now though), Action Cable only supports a handful of connections compared to nodejs.

3/ No ML support.

If you want a framework that "allows people to just get stuff done" then use Django. It is similar to rails and has all the bells and whistles of the ML community.