It's much simpler than Nitro.  It doesn't offer MVC at all, doesn't
have an ORM built in, doesn't have as large a library of helpers, and
so on.  It's much faster though (I couldn't get good numbers from ab
for Nitro for some reason but from what I could get it's about 10x
faster).

It's also much simpler than Ramaze.  It doesn't offer MVC, is about 5x
faster, doesn't offer as many templating options (yet), doesn't offer
caching, etc.

The concentration here is similar to what PHP _should_ be used for:
template centric development.  I'll eventually add things like
layouts, caching, cookies, sessions, etc, but I'm not going to go to a
"full fledged" MVC-optional, super framework like these guys.  Simple
and speedy is good!

Basically, I've always liked the original idea of Merb so I thought I
would resurrect it.  :)

--Jeremy

On Jan 5, 2008 12:20 PM, James Britt <james.britt / gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeremy McAnally wrote:
> >
> > To give you an idea of how much lighter this is than Rails or Merb,
> > here are the requests per second according to ab on my box:
> >
> > Merb:  56 rp/s
> > Rails:  41 rp/s
> > Vintage:  534 rp/s
>
> How does it compare to Nitro or Ramaze (neither or which requires you to
> follow MVC)?
>
>
>
> --
> James Britt
>
> www.ruby-doc.org             - Ruby Help & Documentation
> www.risingtidesoftware.com   - Wicked Cool Coding
> www.rubystuff.com            - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
> www.jamesbritt.com           - Playing with Better Toys
>
>



-- 
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/