Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Ruby (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f66-ruby.html)
-   -   If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t855797-if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond.html)

Gregory Brown 02-11-2009 05:12 PM

If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
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.

--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpractices.com


Gregory Brown 02-11-2009 05:16 PM

Re: If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
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?
>



Gregory Brown 02-11-2009 05:21 PM

Re: If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dominik Honnef <dominikho@gmx.net> wrote:
> +1, even though you failed at changing the text of this mail compared
> to the other one.


Noticed that just after I posted, sorry.


--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpractices.com


David Masover 02-11-2009 05:58 PM

Re: If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
I'm writing 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.


John Carter 02-11-2009 08:18 PM

Forward / Onward to 1.91 and beyond Re: If you are happy withthedirection of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
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.

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



Gregory Brown 02-11-2009 08:31 PM

Re: Forward / Onward to 1.91 and beyond Re: If you are happy withthedirection of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
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.


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


Daniel Berger 02-11-2009 08:37 PM

Re: If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 


On Feb 11, 10:12=A0am, 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. =A0 If you agree with this, share your
> thoughts or at least a simple '+1'. =A0If you disagree, please find the
> other thread titled 'If you are happy with the direction of Ruby
> 1.8.7, respond'. =A0If 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. =A0I'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


Pit Capitain 02-11-2009 09:21 PM

Re: If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
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?

Regards,
Pit


Radosław Bułat 02-11-2009 09:45 PM

Re: If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Pit Capitain <pit.capitain@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Pit
>
>

h=3D{}
h[{"foo" =3D> 1}] =3D 100
p h[{"foo" =3D> 1}]

ruby 1.8.6 prints "nil", 1.8.7 prints "100".

--=20
Pozdrawiam

Rados=B3aw Bu=B3at
http://radarek.jogger.pl - m=F3j blog


Pit Capitain 02-11-2009 09:59 PM

Re: If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond
 
2009/2/11 Rados=B3aw Bu=B3at <radek.bulat@gmail.com>:
> h=3D{}
> h[{"foo" =3D> 1}] =3D 100
> p h[{"foo" =3D> 1}]
>
> ruby 1.8.6 prints "nil", 1.8.7 prints "100".


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?

Regards,
Pit



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.