Kind of goes without saying, but the flip side of having all of these tools under a single opinionated umbrella is that if any piece of it sucks, people are going to drop the whole toolchain. Hence this is a high risk project, especially because everything is being built from scratch.
The twitter discussion leading for the new domain and name of the project <a href="https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/1319870764435316736" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/1319870764435316736</a>
I tried learning this; there wasn't documentation on even the most basic of commands, `rome develop`, which failed. Sounds like a cool project, but the learning resources are really not there.
I wrote a little bit about Rome and my thoughts about it here:<p><a href="https://aralroca.com/blog/do-all-roads-lead-to-rome" rel="nofollow">https://aralroca.com/blog/do-all-roads-lead-to-rome</a><p>Hope it can be helpful to someone
When I try and check out their new page linked from here, I'm getting a certificate error. It looks like it's only issued for Netlify subdomains. Minor, but kinda annoying.<p>One question I have about Rome is why it tries to take on the testing framework too. I really like the idea of it having all the build tooling together, but testing seems like a sort of separate thing. Other environments I've used let libraries fill the gaps for testing, including JS. Is there a big advantage to pulling it into Rome?
I am very pleased with Webpack, but it definitely shows its roots as a specifically javascript bundler with other formats hacked on top. For instance, while one can have a `.css` file or `.html` file as an entry point, Webpack will nevertheless output a `.js` file with the same name for every entrypoint.<p>I will be keeping my eye on Rome
I was confused for a moment, because this has the same name as a companion tool for Carthage. <a href="https://github.com/tmspzz/Rome" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/tmspzz/Rome</a>