I find the comments given as examples of the "blowback" against the post very typical of programmers and fairly revealing.

First, does anyone doubt the value of learning Ruby is much greater than $2,800? I imagine the course is targeted at someone without any programming experience[1], which only increases its value.

Second, not everyone can teach themselves to code. It's an easy trap for us programmers to fall into, since we can often pick material up on our own. But we do call it "code" for a reason -- this is difficult stuff!

Third, many objections focus on the high price of the course. That's absurd -- it only establishes a higher value on the skillset those programmers already possess! We clamor for managers and sales people to just learn to program a little bit -- one way of conveying that value is to capture more of it in the training programs.

Fourth, these courses are just an option. Their existence doesn't threaten all the awesome free Rails courses out there.

It strikes me as a little bit of trademen unions. As if we want new programmers to pass the "self taught" trial by fire initiation ritual.

[1]I also understand the objection to the forum in which this course was offered; however, the primary objections in the article seemed to be focused on the cost of the course, rather than the manner in which it was advertised.

(edit, formatting)

I've been teaching programming classes (mostly Ruby, Python, and PostgreSQL -- and for a long time, Perl) for more than 10 years. People ask me to come to their companies and teach these technologies to them, and they're willing to pay me for it.

How many such courses have I ever taken? None. And I can't imagine ever taking one.

Like many others on HN, I've got a CS degree, and an ability (and interest) in teaching myself new languages, techniques, and tools. I also have the advantage of being self-employed, which means that I can (and do) take the time to learn new things, even if they're not directly related to the work that I do for clients.

So if I want to learn a new language, I'll get some books on the subject, read a bunch of blog postings, try out a lot of things... and then make mistakes, and learn from those.

Is this a great way to learn? I certainly think so. But it's not the only way, and I recognize that:

- Some people prefer the structure of a course, laying out the concepts in an organized way

- Some people don't have the time to experiment, and need the compressed time of a course, even if it means that they learn things less deeply

- Companies sometimes need to get a lot of people up to speed on a technology quickly, and a course can reduce that time somewhat, by having everyone at the same level

- Some people cannot learn without a teacher or guide.

I'll add that one of the advantages that my students get is lots of advice based on experience. It's not unusual for me to introduce a concept, or show them that something is possible, or answer a question -- and then say, "Please don't do this in your code, for your own sake and for the sake of anyone who will have to maintain it after you." Sure, people might learn this on their own, but I can give them a jump-start, based on my own trials and errors.

Now, is $2800 a lot to pay to learn Ruby? I don't think so, but it depends on all sorts of factors. I can assure you that for every day of a course that I teach, I've put in at least one day of preparation, and often much more than that. There are many courses out there, in many different shapes, forms, and price levels, that I don't think it's fair to bad-mouth someone who tries to charge that much. Believe me, if they're charging too much, the market will make it clear to them very quickly.

But if they're giving a good course, then it'll quickly be oversubscribed at that price (or beyond) -- and furthermore, participants will feel like they've gotten a good deal for their money.

It's so disappointing when people get up in arms over things like this. So someone decides to put on a class for $2,800? If you wouldn't pay that, don't go. If you don't think it's a good value, you should be free to voice your opinion: "I don't think this is a good value because of X, Y, and Z." There's no sense in getting worked up over it.

What a strange community. Who cares if a class is $2800? $2800 is only a few days of a programmer's time, and if he can learn faster in the format of a class, then it's money well spent. If you can learn from some docs and playing around, that's good too (but beware: you might be doing things horribly wrong and you won't know until long after the bad habits have solidified).

Disclaimer: I've taught programming classes like this (but only charged a few hundred dollars for 3 days).

>Art.sy’s Daniel Doubrovkine and Pivotal Labs’s Dimitri Roche are teaching a six-week class on Ruby on Rails at General Assembly for $2,800. When Mr. Doubrovkine took to the NYC-rb mailing list to advertise, he was surprised by the pushback. “I don’t want to put you down or sound like a jerk but any programmer should be able to learn Rails without paying $2,800,” wrote Rubyist Kfir Shay. “Documentation is excellent, free online resources are plenty, community is strong etc.”

I bet that a better investment with that cash, would be to get a decent Ruby library.

$2,000 Macbook, $800 chair, no one bats an eyelash.

$2,800 to learn the skills that justify the Macbook and chair, and it's offensive.

I (and many others) spent many times this amount at college to learn "heavier" (yet much less valuable in my opinion) languages like C, Java, Lisp and Smalltalk.

I taught myself the languages I write today and turned out fine. But for many of the people in the classes around me? This would have been an awesome value.

I dunno. Yeah, there are reams of documentation and tutorials available online for Rails... but loads of it is crap, or it takes a "and now magic happens! * poof * your site can now accept credit cards!" approach that's a massive barrier to really understanding how the framework works.

This isn't really excessive for a 6 week course, especially if it's well-done. College costs more. As a concrete example, though likely on the expensive end, here's one example for a 2 week course over the summer: $3,500 http://www.internaldrive.com/idga/courses/teen-game-developm...

As long as potential customers aren't offended, this is an odd complaint, but the psychology is predictable. Indeed, part of the reason I made a free online version of the Rails Tutorial (the PDF book mentioned in the article) was to insulate myself against the criticism that I was gouging my customers. I figured that if people complained about the price of the PDF and screencasts, I could say "Look, there's a 500-page book available for free online—what more do you want from me?" This strategy has worked, with basically no complaints about cost. In fact, most feedback had been along the lines of "This is a great value. I hope it's making a lot of money!" It is, and finding a business model that makes money while giving away a lot of value has been very gratifying.

In the case of the Rails course mentioned in the OP, maybe they can record it and make the videos available for free, à la MIT OpenCourseWare. That wouldn't silence all the critics, but it might shut some of them up. And I bet it would boost sales to boot.

I'm not a Rubyist, but the price tag isn't really the offensive part. 2,800 is fine for 12 2 hour classes. If you include grading and one on one help, it is a potential bargain.

Here is the offensive part (to me, anyway):

Students who successfully complete the six-week program will be certified by General Assembly in Ruby on Rails. Certification is a way for General Assembly to let our partner organizations, start-ups, and others know that a student successfully completed the course.

I know that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, but how long before this type of thing becomes the equivalent of a Microsoft certification and is a check-box that HR departments look for when hiring Rails developers?

Now I've got to spend nearly 3k dollars every couple of years to maintain my 'Rails certification', which I don't really need because I learned Rails on my own in a weekend and the point of Rails is that it makes things easy (reasonable defaults and all of that). If you need a certification to learn Rails, something has gone seriously wrong!

If the community legitimizes efforts like this (by not laughing at them and running them out of town on a rail)... There is a possibility that they will give some clout to certification organizations, which could lead to above (fairly unlikely, but plausible) slippery slope situation where you need certs to program Rails.

I can definitely see the value in having a classroom setting learning environment. Sure some people can learn on their own, but there's quite a bit of noise out there in all the tutorials and how-tos.

If a $2800 course could filter all the crap out, teach the basics and get a beginner up to the level where a beginner can start teaching themselves then the $2800 is well spent.

Of course if the class doesn't follow through then it's just like most of the actual college courses I took - a waste of time.

How many of these offended developers paid 30k for a C.S. degree?

A little off topic, but this stood out:

> One user, Dave Newton, wrote: “In any case, I’m done–nyc.rb is pretty much ruined for me, before my first in-person meetup, before I had a chance to contribute back.”

Overreaction and hyperbole like this reeks of childishness and it's pretty sad that something like this even made the article.

I take mild offence to "...learning lightweight languages like Ruby and Javascript"

let the customer's decide

I've paid far more for far less training in certain areas.

People who do ruby professionally have a culture problem.