Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it
wasn't given a clean break with the 2.0 name? I know Matz had his own
ideas for 2.0, but why couldn't he call his version 3.0?
There's a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. Ruby
has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and
1.9 represents a big improvement from the past. But the name 1.9 does
not communicate the newness of it. It looks like just another release
of the same.
On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But
on the other hand it's problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is
quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know.
Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn't happened yet, would
it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call
it 2.0?
In Ruby, major change is indicated by x.y.z -> x.(y+1).z, not
necessarily (x + 1).y.z
···
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, The Higgs bozo <higgs.bozo@gmail.com> wrote:
Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it
wasn't given a clean break with the 2.0 name? I know Matz had his own
ideas for 2.0, but why couldn't he call his version 3.0?
There's a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. Ruby
has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and
1.9 represents a big improvement from the past. But the name 1.9 does
not communicate the newness of it. It looks like just another release
of the same.
On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But
on the other hand it's problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is
quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know.
Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn't happened yet, would
it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call
it 2.0?
Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it
wasn't given a clean break with the 2.0 name? I know Matz had his own
ideas for 2.0, but why couldn't he call his version 3.0?
There's a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. Ruby
has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and
1.9 represents a big improvement from the past. But the name 1.9 does
not communicate the newness of it. It looks like just another release
of the same.
On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But
on the other hand it's problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is
quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know.
Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn't happened yet, would
it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call
it 2.0?
Because Matz gets to decide what the version number is. No other reason than that
···
--
Ron Fox
NSCL
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1321
1.9 is "major major" if you compare to anything since 1.4. I mean
YARV? Come on.
However, I'll make a wild guess here... Matz wants to introduce the
real Ruby 2.0 sooner rather than later. If he labeled 1.9 as 2.0, he
would be force to hold off a while... okay, one can dream
T.
···
On Dec 2, 3:59 pm, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, The Higgs bozo <higgs.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it
> wasn't given a clean break with the 2.0 name? I know Matz had his own
> ideas for 2.0, but why couldn't he call his version 3.0?
> There's a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. Ruby
> has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and
> 1.9 represents a big improvement from the past. But the name 1.9 does
> not communicate the newness of it. It looks like just another release
> of the same.
> On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But
> on the other hand it's problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is
> quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know.
> Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn't happened yet, would
> it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call
> it 2.0?
In Ruby, major change is indicated by x.y.z -> x.(y+1).z, not
necessarily (x + 1).y.z
I follow this pattern for my projects, and I wonder this myself.
I reserve x + 1 for something that will 'totally change' a project.
For example, Replacing PDF::Writer with Prawn in Ruport will result in
Ruport 2.0, because it's going to break absolutely everything.
So I think x + 1 is reserved for whenever a crazy party is in order,
or at least a crazy riot.
-greg
···
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 3:59 pm, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, The Higgs bozo <higgs.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it
> wasn't given a clean break with the 2.0 name? I know Matz had his own
> ideas for 2.0, but why couldn't he call his version 3.0?
> There's a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. Ruby
> has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and
> 1.9 represents a big improvement from the past. But the name 1.9 does
> not communicate the newness of it. It looks like just another release
> of the same.
> On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But
> on the other hand it's problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is
> quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know.
> Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn't happened yet, would
> it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call
> it 2.0?
In Ruby, major change is indicated by x.y.z -> x.(y+1).z, not
necessarily (x + 1).y.z
