The fake case against Laravel that never dies . The truth is found in the docs: https://laravel.com/docs/5.8/facades
> Facades provide a "static" interface to classes that are available in the application's service container. Laravel ships with many facades which provide access to almost all of Laravel's features. Laravel facades serve as "static proxies" to underlying classes in the service container, providing the benefit of a terse, expressive syntax while maintaining more testability and flexibility than traditional static methods.
There are way too many magic things happening under the hood for my taste.
https://laravel.com/docs/5.8/facades
"Contract" is not a term they invented; it's a term from "design by contract programming," and Laravel enforces the "contracts" through interfaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract
(And, no, they did not invent the term "facade," either.)
Rails does take a lot of established concepts like MVC and mangles them pretty badly, but the Rails version of MVC works well in practice if you're willing to overlook how unconventional it is. The beauty is not in the adherence to dogma, but the day-to-day experience of using it when you know how it works.
It takes surprisingly little code to do some complex things in Rails. I'm working with GraphQL now and it's stupid easy to build out an API with Rails.
Laravel might seem all sorts of "wrong" to someone who has expectations of "how things should be", but the Laravel way, when accepted for what it is, works. It provides structure and cohesion which in the PHP world is in extremely short supply.
Also, they love to invent their own names for existing things. For example, they named a folder with interfaces as "Contracts", although there are only interfaces.
You are using "Ruby on Rails" as some sign of quality, but if it uses magic and static methods like Laravel, I would consider it ugly too. Also, I remember reading somewhere that they were hotpatching imported modules. Luckily in PHP you cannot do it.