[ehm_may]

You have my compliments and respect for undertaking an endeavor like re-thinking (and actually implementing!) rails architecture, so my apologies if my comments sound harsh or cynical. (I just want to talk about it)

I'm having a hard time understanding the need for this, especially because I'm highly suspicious of building any significant amount of abstraction on top of rails. This is because rails core is fucking insane. Besides the fact that it's in a constant state of flux, the amount of dynamic/meta/runtime fuckery that takes place makes it a living nightmare for security (and performance).

Rails already provides a highly-specific set of "convention over configuration" settings that work for most users with a basic understanding of HTTP. How exactly does this framework make those settings "better" besides re-arranging the basic set of abstractions that base rails provides (and adding more "fuckery" on top of that)?

Who is your target user group? Rails already attracts a significant number of new developers who have never worked with the web before because the abstractions are relatively easy and straightforward to understand. This is what makes rails very impressive and attractive, but, at the same time it locks a whole generation of new web developers into "the rails way" of thinking about the web (and later have to be untaught when they realize performance is actually important).

IMO If a "better" ruby web framework was to come into existence, I would encourage it to be more in touch with the basic abstractions that are already built into HTTP (see https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt) and not try to over-abstract those basic concepts so that moving among http frameworks (in ruby or other) requires significant domain knowledge.

Are there any performance benchmarks? I could see a project like this unintentionally adding 2-3x performance hits (without realizing it) due to the extra abstractions.

BTW, what the fuck is up with this book? I assume you want to sell it to me in the future so that I can learn how to "properly" use your brand new open-source framework? What the fuck is wrong with a readme and a wiki, especially if you ever considered larger open-source adoption? Are you so self-righteous that you think I should feel entitled to have the pleasure of being able to download "a preview" of your e-book in your fucking readme?

[tinco]

Don't be an asshole man, the guy made a framework, the readme is plenty fine, and he has a nice book to sell with it. How are you so self-righteous to judge how other people should run their open source software project? How do you feel so entitled that you should get everything this guy makes for free? He is just asking for you to consider buying the book he spent a lot of effort into writing.

BTW, what's up with the crazy assumptions about performance hits? You do realize we're talking about Rails here right?

[ehm_may]

Sorry...just been annoyed at rails lately, was drunk reading through here, and wrongly took out my personal frustrations as a diatribe against the author. I'm an asshole.

[mosselman]

", so my apologies if my comments sound harsh or cynical."

While in fact you don't mean them to _just_ be harsh or cynical, but you also want to personally insult the OP and make him feel bad about posting something.

'Apology declined' I would think.