On Dec 23, 2008, at 11:27 pm, Anthony Green wrote:
> Merb 2.0 is effectively going to be Rails 3.0 > Rails wants to adopt Merb's codebase but can't swallow it all in one > go so > will do it through a series of refactors > > I thinking learning Merb is even more useful now. > > DHH is relinquishing Rails opinions for Merbs philosophy. I hope this is the case. (In which case, Doug, you don't need to worry.) But if so, doesn't it seem like the whole performance is a face-saving charade for DHH? If Rails 3 is more Merb 2 than Rails 2+ +, why is it being called Rails 3? And if it's more Rails than Merb, WTF is Katz doing abandoning one of the most significant Ruby projects ever made? I suspect the former will be true, which still begs the question, what does the Merb core team have to gain from merging with Rails? They've already shown great technical competence and a level- headed attitude to the politics of web-development. I'd love to know what went on behind the scenes to produce this extremely one sided deal. Insert rampant speculation here, please :) VVVVVVVVVVVV ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ashley -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://aviewfromafar.net/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
