I've been contemplating using Ruby for an upcoming large project, but became
concerned when I learned that the next versions of Ruby (1.9, 2.0) will
include sweeping backwards-incompatible changes (ref:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite). Does this not raise some concern with
Ruby developers? There seems to be little talk about this on the mailing
lists, but it's a considerable issue for projects running in full production
environments.
Does this not raise some concern with
Ruby developers? There seems to be little talk about this on the mailing
lists, but it's a considerable issue for projects running in full production
environments.
The next major version is years ahead. And even when it does arrive, so what? You'll still be able to run your old apps on the old Ruby. I have nothing but cheerful expectations for the next major revision.
···
--
David Heinemeier Hansson,
http://www.rubyonrails.org/ -- Web-application framework for Ruby
http://www.instiki.org/ -- A No-Step-Three Wiki in Ruby
http://www.basecamphq.com/ -- Web-based Project Management
http://www.loudthinking.com/ -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.nextangle.com/ -- Development & Consulting Services
Hello Kevin,
I've been contemplating using Ruby for an upcoming large project, but became
concerned when I learned that the next versions of Ruby (1.9, 2.0) will
include sweeping backwards-incompatible changes (ref:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite\). Does this not raise some concern with
Rite is not Ruby 2.0
For some unkown reasons the ruby developers decided that they don't
like two digit version numbers so after 1.9 comes 2.0. But this step
is very smoothly (at least the step from 1.8.1 to the current CVS) so
i think it will not hurt you very much.
And i doubt that ruby will change so much in the future because i
guess that matz company would not be happy if his work breaks to much
existing code.
···
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
In article <FWwPc.791$Bci.243@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
I've been contemplating using Ruby for an upcoming large project, but became
concerned when I learned that the next versions of Ruby (1.9, 2.0) will
include sweeping backwards-incompatible changes (ref:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite\). Does this not raise some concern with
Ruby developers? There seems to be little talk about this on the mailing
lists, but it's a considerable issue for projects running in full production
environments.
First off, Ruby 2.0 is a long ways off so there should be plenty of time
to prepare.
Perl6 is also going to be totally incompatible with Perl5 - however, they
are planning to have a means for running (or converting) older scripts. We
should also have some kind of strategy for running older code.
I think we do definately need more discussion about upcoming
incompatibities so we can develop a strategy for dealing with it - as far
as I know we've got some time to come up with a plan.
Phil
···
Kevin Howe <khowe@perfnet.ca> wrote:
"Kevin Howe" <khowe@perfnet.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:FWwPc.791$Bci.243@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I've been contemplating using Ruby for an upcoming large project, but
became
concerned when I learned that the next versions of Ruby (1.9, 2.0) will
I think you mixed versions here: the version you are talking about is 2.0
only AFAIK.
robert
Hi --
···
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Lothar Scholz wrote:
And i doubt that ruby will change so much in the future because i
guess that matz company would not be happy if his work breaks to much
existing code.
The position Matz expressed at RubyConf last year was that 2.0
probably would break some things, but that he would rather do a lot of
breaking all at once (major version change) than a little at a time.
David
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
In article <144121783421.20040802221513@scriptolutions.com>,
···
Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:
Hello Kevin,
I've been contemplating using Ruby for an upcoming large project, but became
concerned when I learned that the next versions of Ruby (1.9, 2.0) will
include sweeping backwards-incompatible changes (ref:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite\). Does this not raise some concern withRite is not Ruby 2.0
But doesn't Ruby 2.0 contain Rite?
I guess I'm under the impression the Rite is the virtual machine for Ruby
2.0 - is that true? So I'm thinking that there won't be a Ruby 2.0 until
the Rite VM is complete - am I mistaken?
Phil
Rather confusingly, there will (apparently) be a 1.9 stable release.
Presumably, 2.0 will implement the same language on top of Rite. I
wouldn't worry too much about it 
Gavin
···
On Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 9:21:34 AM, Phil wrote:
In article <144121783421.20040802221513@scriptolutions.com>,
Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:Hello Kevin,
I've been contemplating using Ruby for an upcoming large project, but became
concerned when I learned that the next versions of Ruby (1.9, 2.0) will
include sweeping backwards-incompatible changes (ref:
Captcha). Does this not raise some concern withRite is not Ruby 2.0
But doesn't Ruby 2.0 contain Rite?
I guess I'm under the impression the Rite is the virtual machine for Ruby
2.0 - is that true? So I'm thinking that there won't be a Ruby 2.0 until
the Rite VM is complete - am I mistaken?
Hi,
Rite is not Ruby 2.0
But doesn't Ruby 2.0 contain Rite?
Ruby2 is a name for the language specification (if I may call it
"specification"). Rite is an implementation of Ruby2.
The 1.9 version of the current interpreter is a test bed for the Ruby2
spec. It will eventually support (most of) Ruby2 features on top of
the interpreter derived from the current one.
I guess I'm under the impression the Rite is the virtual machine for Ruby
2.0 - is that true? So I'm thinking that there won't be a Ruby 2.0 until
the Rite VM is complete - am I mistaken?
The 2.0 version of my interpreter will support Ruby2 language and will
be equipped with Rite implementation.
matz.
···
In message "Re: Ruby's future" on 04/08/03, Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> writes: