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.)
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.