The sentiment (that'd you'd want to use something that's "railsy" for making static pages) sounds completely batshit crazy to me -- but given the number of upvotes and (sane-sounding) supporting comments, I suppose there might be something to it. I'll have a look, even if I'm more in the camp that thinks "how does any of this improve on m4 anyway"...
I suppose it really does demonstrate that rails has great mind-share and a lot of developers still using it (and enjoying using it) -- which is great. Still a little surprised there's so much apparent overlap between people that thing that "hey rails is a great way to make web-apps", and people that thing "static html is great for content". Perhaps an indication of how "ajax-driven" web development have forced everyone to look at webapps as api+rendering -- and how (apparently) well rails have been adopted to that design (because, I'm guessing, everyone's been forced to break their architecture into a view/template layer that's driven by data --- much like a well-structured coldfusion, asp or php app -- but with ajax).
I suppose it really does demonstrate that rails has great mind-share and a lot of developers still using it (and enjoying using it) -- which is great. Still a little surprised there's so much apparent overlap between people that thing that "hey rails is a great way to make web-apps", and people that thing "static html is great for content". Perhaps an indication of how "ajax-driven" web development have forced everyone to look at webapps as api+rendering -- and how (apparently) well rails have been adopted to that design (because, I'm guessing, everyone's been forced to break their architecture into a view/template layer that's driven by data --- much like a well-structured coldfusion, asp or php app -- but with ajax).