john at oxyliquit.de
Sun Aug 26 20:20:09 EDT 2007
>> the nitro way and smells as good as Nitro.
> But this smells to me like the situation with Compiz + Beryl: unnecessary
> duplication of efforts.
Ah no, imo it has enough differences to have a reason to exist.
Nitro was allways a little more.. 'opaque' to me opposed to Og, also
because Og produced more problems and so needed more code reading. ;)
Hackability is a big plus for me, I have commit rights to the public repo,
structure is a little less opaque, some things are way more modular
(like pluggable Logger classes/caches/cache backends), it's smaller,
the test/spec-suite is always green (there's even a tutorial which gets
tested by RSpec, that gets geek points).
There's stuff which is impractical/impossible with it, like streaming
data. Caching is a little lacking too. If one wanted that, REST is
not included, feature wise it only has stuff which the current users
care about (which are very few) and there's no support for any ORM.
Nitro is feature wise still on top. In fact, I use the FormHelper
from Nitro to power Og, even within my current projects.
So, I still wholeheartedly recommend Nitro to anyone I meet, it always
depends on what you need. I would recommend Rails to someone who is
searching for something which has most business backing and IOWA to
someone caring about the highest speed.
Hope that helps explaining my state of mind. :)
Feel the love
More information about the Nitro-general