I think this hits the nail on the head. On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote:
> This whole issue amuses me greatly. > Developers find it seemingly easy to abstract patterns from code. Yet, when > it comes to doing something as comparatively conceptually simple as thinking > about the development of two web frameworks converging where the positives > from ALL frameworks get carried over (including no-bloat), they cannot grasp > it. > > From Merb's point of view, Merb gets all the benefit of code that has been > built from real-use scenarios to address real-user problems, but keeps all > of its modularity and keeps its small footprint and its speed. > > From Rails' point of view, Rails' internals get a total work over, and > become tight, small and modular, exactly as Merb's are. > > They end up at the same point. > > Debating it is ridiculous - it's simply a naming issue - but as we all > (SHOULD) know, a thing is the same thing if you call it a different name. > > I tend to think that a lot of people use Merb because of its IMAGE as the > "small underdog which is more powerful" rather than the actual code. > > If you renamed Rails 3 to Merb 3, then I'd say that pretty much ALL Merb > people would be happy. I'd wager it's simply a naming issue at the root of > it. > > Ironic, isn't it? ;-) > > Julian. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" 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/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
