Which version of Ruby is most widely used?

ruby-talk
1

What version of Ruby are most of us currenting using?

Are most using 1.8.0? Or are most sticking with 1.6.x until 1.8.2 comes out in mid-July?

For Ruby on Windows, I've heard a recommendation by someone to stick with 1.8.0 instead of 1.8.1 (but that was a while back).

Just curious to know which version(s) of Ruby is most widely used at the moment.

2

Hello Randy,

What version of Ruby are most of us currenting using?

Are most using 1.8.0? Or are most sticking with 1.6.x until 1.8.2 comes
out in mid-July?

For Ruby on Windows, I've heard a recommendation by someone to stick
with 1.8.0 instead of 1.8.1 (but that was a while back).

This was for a bug in the Pragmatic Programmer Installer.
Can the people on this list please be a little bit more precise !

It's the same as saying that Linux sucks because SUSE 8.2 has a
configuation bug in the YAST control program.

···

--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's

3

I use the latest stable release of the one-click installer - and I get
everyone I know to do the same.

-Rich

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Lawrence" <jm@zzzzzzzzzzzz.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: Which version of Ruby is most widely used?

What version of Ruby are most of us currenting using?

Are most using 1.8.0? Or are most sticking with 1.6.x until 1.8.2 comes
out in mid-July?

For Ruby on Windows, I've heard a recommendation by someone to stick
with 1.8.0 instead of 1.8.1 (but that was a while back).

Just curious to know which version(s) of Ruby is most widely used at the
moment.

4

latest snapshot on both windows and linux (actually latest one-clieck
installer on windows)

···

il Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:51:46 GMT, Randy Lawrence <jm@zzzzzzzzzzzz.com> ha scritto::

5

i have always just compiled the stable-snapshot and never had a problem and
have reccomended this to others as well.

-a

···

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Randy Lawrence wrote:

What version of Ruby are most of us currenting using?

Are most using 1.8.0? Or are most sticking with 1.6.x until 1.8.2 comes out in mid-July?

For Ruby on Windows, I've heard a recommendation by someone to stick with 1.8.0 instead of 1.8.1 (but that was a while back).

Just curious to know which version(s) of Ruby is most widely used at the moment.

--

EMAIL :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
PHONE :: 303.497.6469
A flower falls, even though we love it;
and a weed grows, even though we do not love it. --Dogen

===============================================================================

6

Well, if you're asking about the most-used by developers actively
hacking on and with Ruby, see below. If you're wondering about the
most widely-installed version, though, I would say that 1.6.8 is
almost certainly the winner, since that's what shipped with Mac OS X
10.2 and 10.3.

Most users of OS X may not know (or really care) that Ruby is
installed, but they almost certainly outnumber us hardy adventures
using it by a wide margin.

Lennon

7

Lothar Scholz wrote:

Hello Randy,

> What version of Ruby are most of us currenting using?

> Are most using 1.8.0? Or are most sticking with 1.6.x until 1.8.2 comes
> out in mid-July?

> For Ruby on Windows, I've heard a recommendation by someone to stick
> with 1.8.0 instead of 1.8.1 (but that was a while back).

This was for a bug in the Pragmatic Programmer Installer.
Can the people on this list please be a little bit more precise !

It's the same as saying that Linux sucks because SUSE 8.2 has a
configuation bug in the YAST control program.

First, I don't think Ruby 1.8.1 for Windows sucks and I apologize if anyone gets that impression by reading my post. I use both Ruby 1.8.0 and 1.8.1 on Windows 2000 and they both work fine for me.

Second, the Pragmatic Programmer Installer (a Windows version of Ruby) is now simply called "RubyInstaller" and can be found at:

  http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

It appears there are currently 3 different releases of RubyInstaller for Ruby 1.8.1 and a release candidate for Ruby 1.8.2.

RubyInstaller is described on their website as:

This is a "one-click", self-contained Windows installer that contains the Ruby language itself, dozens of popular extensions and packages, a syntax-highlighting editor and execution environment, and a Windows help file that contains the full text of the book, "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide".

8

Just to clarify, this analogy does not quite match because there is a
problem with the Pragmatic Installer 1.8.1 which is not related to the
actual installer software but in the way the interpreter was built
[ruby-talk:104039]. To use your analogy, it would be like Suse 8.2
shipping with a glibc which is incompatible with other Linux
distributions.

(Pragmatic Installer 1.8.0 and the 1.8.2 RC do not have this problem.)

···

--- Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:

Hello Randy,

> What version of Ruby are most of us currenting using?

> Are most using 1.8.0? Or are most sticking with 1.6.x until 1.8.2 comes
> out in mid-July?

> For Ruby on Windows, I've heard a recommendation by someone to stick
> with 1.8.0 instead of 1.8.1 (but that was a while back).

This was for a bug in the Pragmatic Programmer Installer.
Can the people on this list please be a little bit more precise !

It's the same as saying that Linux sucks because SUSE 8.2 has a
configuation bug in the YAST control program.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

9

Just to be accurate here, although we kicked of this work, there's now a separate team working on it, most noticeably Curt Hibbs.

Cheers

Dave

···

On Jul 5, 2004, at 3:04, Jeff Mitchell wrote:

(Pragmatic Installer 1.8.0 and the 1.8.2 RC do not have this problem.)

10

Should it perhaps then be called something other than the "Pragmatic
Installer" now?

-a

···

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:58:30 +0900, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:

On Jul 5, 2004, at 3:04, Jeff Mitchell wrote:

(Pragmatic Installer 1.8.0 and the 1.8.2 RC do not have this problem.)

Just to be accurate here, although we kicked of this work, there's now
a separate team working on it, most noticeably Curt Hibbs.

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

11

Austin Ziegler wrote:

>> (Pragmatic Installer 1.8.0 and the 1.8.2 RC do not have this problem.)
> Just to be accurate here, although we kicked of this work, there's now
> a separate team working on it, most noticeably Curt Hibbs.

Should it perhaps then be called something other than the "Pragmatic
Installer" now?

I've been calling it the "Ruby Installer for Windows", and informally
calling it the "one-click installer".

Under the banner of the "Ruby Installer" project I'd like to get similar
installers for other platforms (OSX, Gnome, etc.). But to make that a
reality I need help. I can handle the additional admin tasks, but I lack the
necessary hardware and expertise to do this myself. If anyone is interested
in working with me on this, please contact me off list.

Thanks,
Curt

···

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:58:30 +0900, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2004, at 3:04, Jeff Mitchell wrote:

12

Perhaps it should, should anyone feel strongly about this. The team working on it gets to name it.

Cheers

Dave

···

On Jul 5, 2004, at 10:15, Austin Ziegler wrote:

Should it perhaps then be called something other than the "Pragmatic
Installer" now?

13

Hi,

Kind of related to this, I've been wondering:

On Windows, I always install CygWin and usually have one or more bash shells
open. I typically install Perl & Ruby and other stuff from the CygWin
installer.

What are the pros/cons of the "one-click installer" Ruby (being a "native"
Windows Ruby) vs CygWin Ruby? Is the one-click version of Ruby compatible
with CygWin/bash? (I'd rather enter path/filename arguments UNIX-style in
commands.)

For myself, I used to use ActiveState Perl on Windows, but nowadays prefer
to use the Perl in CygWin. I'd like to know what experts think. (If indeed
there are any experts using Windows :sunglasses:

Regards

John Hurst

14

I rarely drop into Cygwin to do anything useful. I never use the
Cygwin version of Ruby. I have needed to do some work with Win32OLE in
the past; I'm not sure how well, if at all, the Cygwin version does
that, but the impression that I have is that the integration isn't all
that good. Note that very early versions of the PP installer were
based on Cygwin compiles.

-austin

···

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:36:49 +0900, John Hurst <jbhurst@attglobal.net> wrote:

For myself, I used to use ActiveState Perl on Windows, but nowadays prefer
to use the Perl in CygWin. I'd like to know what experts think. (If indeed
there are any experts using Windows :sunglasses:

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca