RoR shares the features he was complaining about and then adds some more. As do most other frameworks concerning the same type of web apps, including those written in PHP.
And sadly most of it necessary, if you don't just serve templated HTML or provide an API. Once JS gets into play and you have to invite friendly Mr. Webpack, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed.
Looking at the original app, the Rakefile for example seems mostly to be there to start Redis? How would we have done this in the olden days of the *AMP stack, assuming the task has to run on both Windows dev machines and the Linux server? Heck, we might not have been able to do this at all, if we just had file and not shell access...
That's pretty much where I was getting at. The stack he complains about is very barebone, and I doubt he'd have anything simpler with PHP or any other stack.
> rake
As you say it's a simple task runner like make. Maybe use a shell script instead, but appart from that, hard to be any simpler.
> rack
That's just an interface, the equivalent would be mod_php & co, not any simpler in my book.
> gem
Not sure what's there is to complain about here. It's a fairly straightforward package manager. Unless you stick to the stdlib, I doubt PHP packages are any easier.
> yaml
Many people hate it, but for simple configuration it's not any worse than JSON or XML. Matter of taste I guess.
I'd be happy to hear or more detailed complaint from antirez, but I don't think anything can be inferred from that single tweet. This reads like someone who hasn't worked with Ruby in a while, and is grumpy he has to figure a few things out again.
Looking at the original app, the Rakefile for example seems mostly to be there to start Redis? How would we have done this in the olden days of the *AMP stack, assuming the task has to run on both Windows dev machines and the Linux server? Heck, we might not have been able to do this at all, if we just had file and not shell access...