Thanks for giving it a go, and I'm really glad that you like it! However, whenever someone says that Happy is a nice framework "for tiny webapps", I like to ch

Thanks for giving it a go, and I'm really glad that you like it! However, whenever someone says that Happy is a nice framework "for tiny webapps", I like to chime in and add that the goal for Happy is to be as simple (and thus fit for tiny apps) as Sinatra, but also a great fit for large applications as it allows for a kind of modular development style that may feel a whole lot more natural to some people than what Rails is doing (and Padrino is sadly trying to mimick): controllers actually describing behavior - no matter how simple or complex - and not URLs or individual resources. I'm very much looking forward to finding out how much this resonates with other Rubyists. Upwards and onwards :)