I don't understand why you think Rails was on hold for all that time and that the modularity is not worth it. Yes it was a tremendous refactoring effort that took a lot of cycles, but Rails 3 has come out with great features.
I mean arel, unobtrusive js, bundler, routing API, and actionmailer overhaul just in 3.0. The asset pipeline, full engine support, modularity benefits such as pluggable ORMs and log subscribers. I find all this stuff to offer huge practical benefits on the ground.
For me the pain of Rails is mostly just the pain of Ruby—ie. it's slow, and concurrency is not really part of the DNA yet.
What are the killer features that Rails has neglected and caused it fall behind in your view?
The idea of asset packaging, of course, is not innovative. Jeremy's original claim was that Rails was put on hold. Integrating an asset pipeline solution into Rails took time and commits, and providing an ecosystem-wide solution for something like this has a strong impact on the overall productivity of the ecosystem.
I know who Jeremy is, and my question is legit. Innovation is a loaded term, and has nothing to do with the question of Rails stagnating. Rails is known for the nice packaging of good ideas, not for brand new ideas. I think you could argue the same about Node or 99.99% of all software since new ideas are extremely rare as are really good quality implementations.
So in all I seriousness, I want to know where he feels Rails is lagging.
I mean arel, unobtrusive js, bundler, routing API, and actionmailer overhaul just in 3.0. The asset pipeline, full engine support, modularity benefits such as pluggable ORMs and log subscribers. I find all this stuff to offer huge practical benefits on the ground.
For me the pain of Rails is mostly just the pain of Ruby—ie. it's slow, and concurrency is not really part of the DNA yet.
What are the killer features that Rails has neglected and caused it fall behind in your view?