[techiferous]

It's important to distinguish between Ruby and Rails. The setup and configuration of Ruby hasn't increased in complexity much over the last few years. (Keep in mind you don't have to use Bundler to use Ruby; Bundler is used in Rails 3).

Back in 2005/2006, it was easier to install Rails. There were less choices which made configuration and setup easier (but which also meant you could do less).

Now Rails has matured and has a large community. There are more features, more Rails-related gems, and the architecture has more choices and moving parts. As a result, you can do more with Rails now, but the learning curve and setup costs are stiffer.

Back in 2005/2006, Rails had a reputation of being easy to set up and dive into. Even though that's no longer true in 2010, the reputation for being easy to pick up has stuck.

Here's a glimpse of how it was "back in the day": http://www.garbett.org/blog/?p=88

[dasil003]

Back in 2005/2006, Rails had a reputation of being easy to set up and dive into

Almost entirely based on DHH's 15-minute scaffolding/TextMate blog demo. It was a brilliant marketing move that arguably put Rails on the map, but the problem was that it gave the impression that Rails was somehow "easy" like PHP and suitable for casual web tinkerers.

The fact that things are more complex now tells a truer story: if you want to do any serious work with Rails you need to be prepared to dive deep into Ruby. When a meta-programming bug strikes you can't hide behind even the most elegant DSL.