I am setting up two threads in the hopes that we can see names
attached to opinions about the decision to break backwards
compatibility between Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.8.7+
This one is for those who wish that Ruby 1.8 would go *back* to being
1.8.6 compatible in Ruby 1.8.8. If you agree with this, share your
thoughts or at least a simple '+1'. If you disagree, please find the
other thread titled 'If you are happy with the direction of Ruby
1.8.7, respond'. If you are in the middle, I don't know what you
should do... write two posts?
My goal is to survey ruby-talk so that the core Ruby team has a chance
to see what people really want. I'm curious to see if this is as
one-sided as I think it is.
Whoops, regretting this idea already, but I need to correct this:
This thread is for if you are *happy* with the backports from Ruby 1.9
and want to see more. If you agree, share your thoughts.
If you disagree, please find the 'if you are unhappy with the
direction of 1.8.7+' post.
···
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> wrote:
I am setting up two threads in the hopes that we can see names
attached to opinions about the decision to break backwards
compatibility between Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.8.7+
This one is for those who wish that Ruby 1.8 would go *back* to being
1.8.6 compatible in Ruby 1.8.8. If you agree with this, share your
thoughts or at least a simple '+1'. If you disagree, please find the
other thread titled 'If you are happy with the direction of Ruby
1.8.7, respond'. If you are in the middle, I don't know what you
should do... write two posts?
Always make forward progress. I'm happy to move to 1.91 and beyond
asap.
That's why I have a really good suite of unit tests. To catch most of
that class of breakage.
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
···
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Gregory Brown wrote:
My goal is to survey ruby-talk so that the core Ruby team has a chance
to see what people really want. I'm curious to see if this is as
one-sided as I think it is.
Given that I have my own fork, I would say the answer is no, I'm not
happy with the direction of 1.8.x.
Regards,
Dan
···
On Feb 11, 10:12 am, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am setting up two threads in the hopes that we can see names
attached to opinions about the decision to break backwards
compatibility between Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.8.7+
This one is for those who wish that Ruby 1.8 would go *back* to being
1.8.6 compatible in Ruby 1.8.8. If you agree with this, share your
thoughts or at least a simple '+1'. If you disagree, please find the
other thread titled 'If you are happy with the direction of Ruby
1.8.7, respond'. If you are in the middle, I don't know what you
should do... write two posts?
My goal is to survey ruby-talk so that the core Ruby team has a chance
to see what people really want. I'm curious to see if this is as
one-sided as I think it is.
Can you show us some examples of 1.8.6 code that doesn't work in 1.8.7?
Regards,
Pit
···
2009/2/11 Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com>:
I am setting up two threads in the hopes that we can see names
attached to opinions about the decision to break backwards
compatibility between Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.8.7+
Mostly happy. I haven't seen the bogeymen reported by many people in
1.8.7. There is String#chars, but that seemed pretty easy to move
past. If there are crashes, pull out gdb and let's see them. Shoes
has had Ruby 1.8.7 within, since shortly after it was released.
Folks, I'd stay away from the heavy-handed approach with Matz. He
doesn't respond to a mob. And despite all the hype and business that
now revolves around Ruby, it's still the man's language and his life
work.
Sometimes this community feels like one of those marriages where the
lady marries the guy because she thinks she can change the guy.
But the guy's the guy! I don't know.
_why
···
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:12:14AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
I am setting up two threads in the hopes that we can see names
attached to opinions about the decision to break backwards
compatibility between Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.8.7+
If you ask me, what the Pythonistas got right that Ruby 1.8.7+ does not is:
from __future__ import x
I think it's great that Ruby 1.8.7+ wants to include all these nifty 1.9
features. But, I don't think they should be "on" by default.
I think it'd be great if certain features (e.g. the 1.9.x enumerators) were
available if you were to, say, require "future/enumerator" or something.
If that were the case, I'd be on board with backporting everything, although
changes to the grammar of the language itself might be difficult to enable
in this manner, and many bring backwards compatibility issues.
···
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com>wrote:
This one is for those who wish that Ruby 1.8 would go *back* to being
1.8.6 compatible in Ruby 1.8.8. If you agree with this, share your
thoughts or at least a simple '+1'. If you disagree, please find the
other thread titled 'If you are happy with the direction of Ruby
1.8.7, respond'. If you are in the middle, I don't know what you
should do... write two posts?
A side effect of 1.8.7 is, it sort of pulls the rug out from under people wanting to stay on the older, stable version. I really don't see a reason why 1.8 shouldn't have features like Symbol#to_proc, or Object#tap, or the other things I like from 1.9 -- even some of the syntax seems harmless, and unlikely to break anything.
Also, as a user, it seems everything I try works on 1.8.7, while not everything works on 1.9 yet. So either it really is a gentler upgrade, or people are feeling compelled to have their gems working on the latest stable version. So in cases where I can't use 1.9, I can at least get closer.
This isn't about Ruby 1.9.1. I'm all for that migration too. (My book
"Ruby Best Practices" is on Ruby 1.9.1 *only*)
I'm talking specifically about the 1.8 branch here.
-greg
···
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM, John Carter <john.carter@tait.co.nz> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Gregory Brown wrote:
My goal is to survey ruby-talk so that the core Ruby team has a chance
to see what people really want. I'm curious to see if this is as
one-sided as I think it is.
Always make forward progress. I'm happy to move to 1.91 and beyond
asap.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Pit Capitain <pit.capitain@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/2/11 Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com>:
I am setting up two threads in the hopes that we can see names
attached to opinions about the decision to break backwards
compatibility between Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.8.7+
Can you show us some examples of 1.8.6 code that doesn't work in 1.8.7?
Folks, I'd stay away from the heavy-handed approach with Matz. He
doesn't respond to a mob. And despite all the hype and business that
now revolves around Ruby, it's still the man's language and his life
work.
Folks, I'd stay away from the heavy-handed approach with Matz. He
doesn't respond to a mob. And despite all the hype and business that
now revolves around Ruby, it's still the man's language and his life
work.
Ah, but it's not Matz's issue. I actually love Ruby 1.9.1, and every
time I ask Matz about this he says "I don't maintain 1.8".
The issue is not with change, but with change that something that was
previously labeled non-changing in a defacto way .
-greg
···
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, _why <why@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Folks, I'd stay away from the heavy-handed approach with Matz. He
doesn't respond to a mob. And despite all the hype and business that
now revolves around Ruby, it's still the man's language and his life
work.
Folks, I'd stay away from the heavy-handed approach with Matz. He
doesn't respond to a mob. And despite all the hype and business that
now revolves around Ruby, it's still the man's language and his life
work.
Sometimes this community feels like one of those marriages where the
lady marries the guy because she thinks she can change the guy.
But the guy's the guy! I don't know.
Unless, of course, the guy can be convinced that he's causing the lady some sort of pain and seek to change himself. Quietly ignoring the problem is what *leads* to mobs and divorces. I think what we're doing here is entirely appropriate: raise concerns, discuss, hope for change or compromise.
It may be Matz's language, but it's everyone's community.
Given that I have my own fork, I would say the answer is no, I'm not
happy with the direction of 1.8.x.
This is the happy thread and I'm happy with 1.8.7 -- well, sort of but
I personally like the changes I know of. I have to say though that I
find the idea to backport even more 1.9 features to 1.8 as strange as
the idea to forget about 1.8.7 and move back to 1.8.6. I'd have
expected 1.8 to be in maintenance mode after 1.9.1 was released.
Ah, you mean Hash#hash. Thanks a lot, I didn't know that. But this is
an example where the 1.8.7 version yields the result most people would
expect, so I see this more like a "feature" fix (not a bug fix,
because it hasn't been an official bug AFAIK). I can't imagine any
code that depends on the behaviour of 1.8.6. Or do you have an
example?
