All innovations either become Establishment or remain obscure. I'm perfectly happy to see Merb go Establishment. If it doesn't work out... it's not as if the project won't be forked again.
Innovation won't stop. It will just have a different name and perhaps some different principals.
That's exactly my hope.
You mention that Rails being the dominant web framework is a strength and in the same sentence remark about how with other languages there are multiple competing frameworks. How, exactly, does this negatively impact developers? On the flip side, how does a merger between Rails and Merb positively impact developers? Developers who don't like Rails had an alternative in Merb and vice versa. How is the elimination of a choice a good thing?
The way I see it, competition here is only a good thing. Why would anyone want Rails to be the only option-- or even the de facto standard-- when it's been shown to be exactly the wrong tool for the job in several high profile scenarios? Don't get me wrong-- I'm not bashing Rails. I'm just saying it's a good thing to have a few more tools in the toolbox. When your only tool is a hammer everything starts looking like nails.
Basically what's happening is that everything in Ruby is already becoming more modular, shifting toward organized APIs, so this helps move in a direction where you can basically build a customized framework like legos out of a bunch of gems and specialized apps without spending an inordinate amount of time trying to patch things to work together.
However, I don't see what this has to do with my original comment. It doesn't address any of the concerns I raised about the john_dahl's comment. Specifically, I'm wondering how several competing web frameworks results in splintering of the Ruby community. Isn't competition good? Don't we want a variety of tools that meet different needs?
I frequently see Merb mentioned as an alternative to Rails in response to some gripe about Rails. Developers obviously have needs that aren't met by Rails. So my question is how is this merger a positive thing for developers? What's wrong with having several tools that are used for different scenarios? Of course, 100 competing web frameworks that are essentially all the same doesn't do anyone any good, but surely there's nothing wrong with several if they specialize in different areas.
john_dahl's comment essentially applauds the merger as a unification of the Ruby community and implies that it's a disadvantage to have competition. Is that really a good thing? Developers don't benefit one iota from having a "winner".
There are other frameworks, although they get little "press", as they lack an Engine Yard or 37signals hype-machine. In fact, if you visit ramaze.net (one of the more mature frameworks) and scroll down, you can find a listing of all the frameworks of which the ramaze people are aware. Twenty-one, including Merb AND Rails, at last count. (It is likely that not all of them are wholly distinguishable from one another. I can't say, as I haven't tried them.)
I think the too much choice problem applies much more when you're installing a Linux distribution and you have to choose from 40 different text editors or IM clients. Who has the time or the inclination to evaluate each one?
I'm mixed on this. One of the strengths of Rails was that it was the dominant Ruby web programming framework. This meant that virtually the entire community was behind Rails when it came to web app development - unlike some other languages, which have several frameworks competing for the crown. But Merb has recently started to give Rails a run for its money. Fortunately, the learning curve between Merb and Rails is relatively small.
So on the one hand, it's great that the Ruby community won't splinter between two competing frameworks.
But on the other hand, Merb was really creative and innovative, and I'd hate to see that innovation slow down as it becomes the Establishment.