Some good points there cravikiran. Rails shines if the ActiveRecord model fits your purpose, but with ASP and Visual Studio a lot of the "straying from the Rails path" becomes much simpler - especially if you are used to the Visual approach to development. Coming from a unix background I still feel a little more comfortable with the pure text-editing approach to GUI or markup layout as well as the coding.

If you don't like the ActiveRecord handling the database you may write your own SQL in the model files - and imho it's not exactly hard. Rails doesn't force its methodology on you - it just offers a nice set of classes and methods - and a default filesystem layout which eases you into the MVC-way of developing. Everything is still overridable and extendable - but you don't have the comfort of drag-and-drop controls and the code-generation facilities (scaffolding) may feel a little limited for ASP.NET developers...

Also, much of the productivity value of ASP.NET and Visual Studio is "limited" to Microsoft products and platforms (I didn't say that there is something wrong with this [A]) which cost quite a few $'s while Rails can be deployed... almost anywhere.

I am however a little inclined towards thinking that Rails is better for smaller projects while ASP.NET might be better suited for larger scale (and especially) business applications. Right now I am doing a medium sized (but extremely mission critical) application in Rails - and so far I feel quite confident that Rails has enough degrees of freedom to let me finish in style. Personally I would love to do a thick-client winforms complement in .NET - but unfortunately my boss is a little too anti-MS for that to happen anytime soon.

I guess my point is... Ruby is fun, Rails is fun, .NET is fun and whatever best fits my take on the task at hand is what will be most appropriate for me to use. Of course this may be limited by factors such as customers requirements or qualifications of my coworkers - but you get my point.