On 24/12/2008 00:15, "Ashley Moran" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? A little harsh. Plenty of Merb ideas have been feeding back into Rails prior to this. I consider myself to be just as opinionated as DHH, doesn't mean I can't be swayed by a passionately put and well argued case. >If Rails 3 is more Merb 2 than Rails 2+ > +, why is it being called Rails 3? The way way merb core sees its so long as the values they hold are encompassed in it who cares what its called ? That's just 'old world' thinking. Rails has the larger feature set and the bigger user base. >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? A larger feature set and a bigger user base. :-) Seriously reading the #merb discussions last night its obvious that at the heart its merb. Agnostic, modular and no alias_method_chain. It can be as small as you like or as feature rich as you like. Think of it as a win for common sense. :-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
