[Argorak]

I definitely like it. As a Padrino developer, might I ask how your project compares to padrino, which seems to have similar goals? (Multiple Applications per project, superset of sinatra, flexible usage of rack, etc.)

We do use the Sinatra plugin system only, though...

[jarrodtaylor]

I just wanted to use something a little more lightweight and unstructured. Without the plugins, Vesper is basically just a Sinatra app. You can organize it as MVC, or not. There's not much abstraction from adding code to a Sinatra app, and everything glues together nicely. Also, I really like developing plugins this way (put the code from an app into a git repo, and you're done).

[Argorak]

So your main complaint about Padrino is Padrino::Application as an extension to Sinatra? Because in every other regard, Padrino (padrino-core) is mostly a convention on how to load and organize code. I use it as a raw library on a regular basis.

I admit that we are a bit behind in regards of apps-as-libraries, but I would prefer to handle that in standardized ways (using gems as distribution format and copying assets using an asset compiler instead of an installation routine).

Also, Padrino encourages not developing any plugins for it - raw Sinatra plugins are very much preferred, but are not compatible to your format.

[jarrodtaylor]

I don't have a complaint against Padrino. I'm not out to replace it or anything, I've just been having a good time writing apps this way.

If Padrino encourages not developing plugins, then yes, that would be a big difference.

By Sinatra plugins, I'm guessing you're talking about extensions (http://www.sinatrarb.com/extensions-wild.html)? If so, how are they not compatible with Vesper?