Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattetti | Hacker News Reader

@kuniklo merb is designed to be modular and to get its pieces working together smoothly. However, this is a harder problem that having one well defined stack. merb isn't for all, and if you are happy with the framework you use, you should stick to it. However, if you happen to have to fight with it to make it do things it was not designed to do, then you might want to look at merb. Also, note that merb also comes in a full stack version that you can customize if you wish to.

So again, in this article, I was not trying to convince people to give up on what they use, but instead offering an alternative for people who are looking for something else.

As Matz said: "We have several post-Rails frameworks, which is very good, and I believe in diversity."

- Matt

View on HN

The fact that there is a full-stack version available doesn't mitigate the fact that the multitudes of custom stacks out there are going to mean two bad things:

1. The default full stack will be a lot less thoroughly documented, tested and debugged because a lot fewer people are using it.

2. The chances that I can just jump in and start hacking productively on somebody else's Merb app are slim because it's likely I'm not familiar with some of the components you're using.

I still don't understand at all why I'd want to use Merb. What problem are you trying to solve here? Being slightly better than Rails in a few respects isn't even close to good enough to compensate for the lack of documentation, code maturity, available programming expertise, public success stories etc that Rails has going for it.

In terms of marketing (well, if you care about that), I think you need something a little bit more compelling than 'designed to be modular'. Show people what modular might mean in terms of lean, fast and low memory requirements. Demonstrate some projects that would have just been using 5% of Rails that can take advantage of how slim Merb is. That kind of thing, I guess.

Agreed that diversity is a good thing, but the article asks why wouldn't I, when I am asking, why would I?

It doesn't help that today, adding more RAM costs very little, and that the new VM in Ruby 1.9 runs my Rails apps 3x to 5x faster, so I have very little reason to look outside Rails.

ruby 1.9 does not run rails apps 3-5x faster. More like maybe 10-20% and slower on some things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com