[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

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

Gregory Brown

2/11/2009 5:12:00 PM

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.majesticseacr...
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.bl...
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpra...
29 Answers

Gregory Brown

2/11/2009 5:16:00 PM

0

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

2/11/2009 5:22:00 PM

0

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.majesticseacr...
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.bl...
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpra...

David Masover

2/11/2009 5:58:00 PM

0

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

2/11/2009 8:18:00 PM

0

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

2/11/2009 8:31:00 PM

0

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

2/11/2009 8:38:00 PM

0



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

2/11/2009 9:22:00 PM

0

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

Radoslaw Bulat

2/11/2009 9:45:00 PM

0

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... - m=F3j blog

Pit Capitain

2/11/2009 10:00:00 PM

0

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

_why

2/11/2009 10:12:00 PM

0

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:12:14AM +0900, 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+

Mostly happy. I haven't seen the bogeymen reported by many people in
1.8.7. There is String#chars, but that seemed pretty easy to move
past. If there are crashes, pull out gdb and let's see them. Shoes
has had Ruby 1.8.7 within, since shortly after it was released.

Folks, I'd stay away from the heavy-handed approach with Matz. He
doesn't respond to a mob. And despite all the hype and business that
now revolves around Ruby, it's still the man's language and his life
work.

Sometimes this community feels like one of those marriages where the
lady marries the guy because she thinks she can change the guy.
But the guy's the guy! I don't know.

_why