Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > If you are unhappy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
Gregory Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
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.

-greg

--
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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Gray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
On Feb 11, 2009, at 11:10 AM, 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+
> 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.


I'm bothered by the new versioning scheme.

The new releases involve big changes and even if they are fully
backwards compatible about what they will run, they are still creating
pretty big compatibility gaps. Code using any of the new 1.8.7
features won't run on 1.8.6 and lower. It sounds as if 1.8.8 intends
to take this farther, so code written to that won't work in the
different 1.8.7 branch or the earlier 1.8.6 and lower stuff. Thus I
feel we now have three different versions of Ruby 1.8 on the table
(counting the not yet released 1.8..

James Edward Gray II

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Coglan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

2009/2/11 Gregory Brown <(E-Mail Removed)>

> 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?




I'm not sure whose problem this really is, but it's worth bearing in mind
that in certain Linux package systems, there is just one 'ruby1.8' package
and one 'ruby1.9' package, each of which ships the latest from that branch.
The same goes for the 'gem' executable, so you only get one gem repo per
'major' version -- you don't get a 1.8.6 gem repo and a 1.8.7 repo, you just
get one for all 1.8.x releases.

Keeping 1.8.x back-compatible with prior 1.8.x seems like it would minimise
confusion for a lot of people and reduce the burden of testing libraries
against multiple Rubys.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alex Fenton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
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+
> 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'.


Gregory - thank you for raising this here. I read this ruby-core thread:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/178191#new

last night, and in particular Akinori MUSHA's statement:

"Yes. Backporting syntactic changes is a big part of the plan for ruby
1.8.8"

Luckily I was in bed else I'd have fallen off my chair. This seems to me
the most bonkers development plan I've seen in a long while.

Stable releases are meant to be *stable*; minor point releases are meant
to be *API compatible*, backwards and forwards. I can't think of any
other serious open-source project that would even contemplate adding
random bits of syntax and API calls in minor releases.

I expressed the same opinion at length and with some fervour regarding
the release of 1.8.7: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/150251#663291

so I won't go on again. However one of the main reasons for allowing
1.8.7 to cherry-pick backports was that, at the time of the decision,
(Nov 2006) 1.9.1 seemed a while off, and some didn't want the language
frozen until then. That seemed impatient to me then, but now there's a
release version of 1.9.1 on the table, I can see no justifcation at all.

The progression to 1.9 isn't that hard anyway; the language hasn't
changed so much. And I can't see that having a whole load of
incompatible 1.8.x mongrel releases washing about (as they end up in
distros etc) helps anyway.

Just to say again, I'm grateful for the work of the core developers and
maintainers - but it seems like 1.8 branch is being treated like a
personal playground rather than a stable version. There's not even a
statement of what features might be backported.

Ooops, I've gone on at length again.

Anyway, +1 for Ruby 1.8.8 being a bugfix release implementing the same
API as 1.8.6

alex
 
Reply With Quote
 
Louis-Philippe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

+1

1.8 should keep its final branch release as fully 1.8 compatible for
posterity. (Keep it legacy compatible)
Ventures into the future can take place inside the Newer 1.9 and 2.0
branches without breaking what we could call "1.8 Legacy" code.

2009/2/11 James Gray <(E-Mail Removed)>

> On Feb 11, 2009, at 11:10 AM, 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+
>> 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.
>>

>
> I'm bothered by the new versioning scheme.
>
> The new releases involve big changes and even if they are fully backwards
> compatible about what they will run, they are still creating pretty big
> compatibility gaps. Code using any of the new 1.8.7 features won't run on
> 1.8.6 and lower. It sounds as if 1.8.8 intends to take this farther, so
> code written to that won't work in the different 1.8.7 branch or the earlier
> 1.8.6 and lower stuff. Thus I feel we now have three different versions of
> Ruby 1.8 on the table (counting the not yet released 1.8..
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Masover
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
I'll write two posts.

Now that 1.9.1 is released, hopefully people will start porting to it,
and 1.8 can remain stable. For the people who still need all their old
gems to work, there should be a stable version -- apparently, 1.8.7
broke a lot of things.

On top of which, if 1.8.8 is an easier upgrade than 1.9, people won't be
as encouraged to port to 1.9.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Radosław Bułat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
I wrote it on ruby-core and I write it again: I'm very worried and
confused with Ruby versioning policy.
I'm very unhappy with all 1.8.7 and possibly 1.8.8 version.

+1

--=20
Pozdrawiam

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
I've posted my opinions on Ruby-Core, but I'll summarize them here:

1. The Ruby community should proceed with all deliberate speed towards
ISO standardization of the language.

2. There are two "de facto" standards for the Ruby language at present.
a. Ruby 1.8.6 as documented in the Pickaxe, Second Edition
b. Ruby 1.9.1 as documented in "The Well-Grounded Rubyist",
"Programming Ruby 1.9" and "The Ruby Programming Language".

All other versions are irrelevant and a waste of precious developer
energy as far as I'm concerned.

3. I don't think it matters what the numbers are, but since the two
"de facto" standard versions have designated numbers already, why not
keep them as they are?

4. Since I don't personally have a large installed base of Ruby code,
I am going to use 1.9.1 whenever possible to
a. Take advantage of the YARV engine.
b. Put some mileage on the implementation, shake out the
documentation, performance tune, etc.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
I've posted my opinions on Ruby-Core, but I'll summarize them here:

1. The Ruby community should proceed with all deliberate speed towards
ISO standardization of the language.

2. There are two "de facto" standards for the Ruby language at present.
a. Ruby 1.8.6 as documented in the Pickaxe, Second Edition
b. Ruby 1.9.1 as documented in "The Well-Grounded Rubyist",
"Programming Ruby 1.9" and "The Ruby Programming Language".

All other versions are irrelevant and a waste of precious developer
energy as far as I'm concerned.

3. I don't think it matters what the numbers are, but since the two
"de facto" standard versions have designated numbers already, why not
keep them as they are?

4. Since I don't personally have a large installed base of Ruby code,
I am going to use 1.9.1 whenever possible to
a. Take advantage of the YARV engine.
b. Put some mileage on the implementation, shake out the
documentation, performance tune, etc.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
I've posted my opinions on Ruby-Core, but I'll summarize them here:

1. The Ruby community should proceed with all deliberate speed towards
ISO standardization of the language.

2. There are two "de facto" standards for the Ruby language at present.
a. Ruby 1.8.6 as documented in the Pickaxe, Second Edition
b. Ruby 1.9.1 as documented in "The Well-Grounded Rubyist",
"Programming Ruby 1.9" and "The Ruby Programming Language".

All other versions are irrelevant and a waste of precious developer
energy as far as I'm concerned.

3. I don't think it matters what the numbers are, but since the two "de
facto" standard versions have designated numbers already, why not keep
them as they are?

4. Since I don't personally have a large installed base of Ruby code, I
am going to use 1.9.1 whenever possible to
a. Take advantage of the YARV engine.
b. Put some mileage on the implementation, shake out the
documentation, performance tune, etc.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond Gregory Brown Ruby 25 02-16-2009 03:55 AM
Unhappy Vista owner PWN Computer Support 8 02-18-2007 03:29 PM
Opening large text file makes program unhappy. hazmaz@gmail.com C++ 8 06-25-2006 05:14 AM
Unhappy with numarray docs Matt Feinstein Python 5 06-01-2005 06:36 PM
Very unhappy about Mozilla J. Yazel Firefox 31 11-07-2004 10:20 PM



Advertisments