At least in my opinion, it's because this style of coding doesn't reduce the things you need to know at all.
The claim is you can write ruby everywhere, but the problem is you still have understand all of the html tags you're using.
So you haven't reduced the knowledge requirement from "HTML + Ruby" to just Ruby, you've increased it to "HTML + Ruby + This DSL"
Doubly so, in this case, since it seems to also be aiming to replace a subset of JS based updates as well, with the same problems.
---
Now - That doesn't mean the framework should be dismissed outright - It might very well be that adding this complexity brings a benefit that's entirely worth it.
Typescript is an example of that tradeoff, I'd say. It adds complexity, but the value it brings with that complexity pays for itself.
So I have no idea if this framework really delivers enough value to be worth it. My gut says no, but I haven't used it, and I'm not a huge ruby fan in the first place, so I'm the first to admit I'm a biased judge.
The claim is you can write ruby everywhere, but the problem is you still have understand all of the html tags you're using.
So you haven't reduced the knowledge requirement from "HTML + Ruby" to just Ruby, you've increased it to "HTML + Ruby + This DSL"
Doubly so, in this case, since it seems to also be aiming to replace a subset of JS based updates as well, with the same problems.
---
Now - That doesn't mean the framework should be dismissed outright - It might very well be that adding this complexity brings a benefit that's entirely worth it.
Typescript is an example of that tradeoff, I'd say. It adds complexity, but the value it brings with that complexity pays for itself.
So I have no idea if this framework really delivers enough value to be worth it. My gut says no, but I haven't used it, and I'm not a huge ruby fan in the first place, so I'm the first to admit I'm a biased judge.