If you're making a 4 page brochure website, you can use react or rails. A beginner can handle that. If you're making a full web application where the user inter

If you're making a 4 page brochure website, you can use react or rails. A beginner can handle that. If you're making a full web application where the user interface had good UX and is performant with non-trivial user interface logic and also there is non-trivial backend logic and eventually you would like to release mobile apps, I don't think you should expect to be able to teach a beginner all of that. But using react+express (I prefer feathersjs, but you can sustitute rails or any other backend) will be the shortest path to the more complicated scenario I mentioned. Your comment is based on a grossly misleading presentation of the comparison though. React is a powerful view layer with an ecosystem around it. Rails is a full framework. You've misrepresented rails as simple and easy to learn by using only one term to describe it, and misrepresented the alternative to rails by separating it's components into named parts to scare us into thinking "Wow, 7 things? That's way more complicated than 2 things!" The reverse misrepresentation would be "So we now have react + postgre, but you're still using rails router + rails templates + rails graphql + rails rest + rails ORM + rails http client + jQuery + jQuery UI + gem + Ruby + macbookpro. How can you manage to train anyone on so many complicated tools?" Why is this progress? Rails has it's limits in terms of full potential (complicsted backend + complicated UI + fast path to cross platform apps). You can add react to rails and reach the full potential. You can also do less than the full potential without react. React has some alternatives growing to also give you full potential, some not even in JS. It's 100% progress all across the board.