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

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Gregory Brown, Feb 11, 2009.

  1. 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, Feb 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    <> 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, Feb 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gregory Brown, Feb 11, 2009
    #3
  4. 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.
    David Masover, Feb 11, 2009
    #4
  5. Gregory Brown

    John Carter Guest

    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 :
    New Zealand
    John Carter, Feb 11, 2009
    #5
  6. 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 <> 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
    Gregory Brown, Feb 11, 2009
    #6
  7. On Feb 11, 10:12=A0am, 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. =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
    Daniel Berger, Feb 11, 2009
    #7
  8. Gregory Brown

    Pit Capitain Guest

    2009/2/11 Gregory Brown <>:
    > 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
    Pit Capitain, Feb 11, 2009
    #8
  9. On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Pit Capitain <> wro=
    te:
    > 2009/2/11 Gregory Brown <>:
    >> 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
    Rados³aw Bu³at, Feb 11, 2009
    #9
  10. Gregory Brown

    Pit Capitain Guest

    2009/2/11 Rados=B3aw Bu=B3at <>:
    > 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
    Pit Capitain, Feb 11, 2009
    #10
  11. Gregory Brown

    _why Guest

    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
    _why, Feb 11, 2009
    #11
  12. Gregory Brown

    Tim Hunter Guest

    _why wrote:
    > 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.


    +1

    --
    RMagick: http://rmagick.rubyforge.org/
    Tim Hunter, Feb 11, 2009
    #12
  13. On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:11 PM, _why wrote:

    > 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.
    >
    > ...
    > _why
    >


    +1 for either path that is taken.
    Zachary Brown, Feb 11, 2009
    #13
  14. Gregory Brown

    James Gray Guest

    On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:11 PM, _why wrote:

    > Folks, I'd stay away from the heavy-handed approach with Matz. He
    > doesn't respond to a mob.


    I agree with this fully and I don't feel like I've joined a mob. I'm
    not angry or out of control.

    I'm saying the new version process scare me. It's just an FYI for
    Matz and the core team. If they ignore it, well, that's how it
    goes. :)

    James Edward Gray II
    James Gray, Feb 11, 2009
    #14
  15. On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, _why <> wrote:

    > 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.


    Ah, but it's not Matz's issue. I actually love Ruby 1.9.1, and every
    time I ask Matz about this he says "I don't maintain 1.8".
    The issue is not with change, but with change that something that was
    previously labeled non-changing in a defacto way .

    -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
    Gregory Brown, Feb 11, 2009
    #15
  16. On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Daniel Berger <> wrote:
    > 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. :)


    Could you give me a link to that fork?
    --
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

    I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Feb 12, 2009
    #16
  17. _why wrote:
    > 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.


    Unless, of course, the guy can be convinced that he's causing the lady
    some sort of pain and seek to change himself. Quietly ignoring the
    problem is what *leads* to mobs and divorces. I think what we're doing
    here is entirely appropriate: raise concerns, discuss, hope for change
    or compromise.

    It may be Matz's language, but it's everyone's community.

    - Charlie
    Charles Oliver Nutter, Feb 12, 2009
    #17
  18. Gregory Brown

    Tom Link Guest

    > 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. :)


    This is the happy thread and I'm happy with 1.8.7 -- well, sort of but
    I personally like the changes I know of. I have to say though that I
    find the idea to backport even more 1.9 features to 1.8 as strange as
    the idea to forget about 1.8.7 and move back to 1.8.6. I'd have
    expected 1.8 to be in maintenance mode after 1.9.1 was released.
    Tom Link, Feb 12, 2009
    #18
  19. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Gregory Brown <>wrote:

    > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, _why <> wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Ah, but it's not Matz's issue. I actually love Ruby 1.9.1, and every
    > time I ask Matz about this he says "I don't maintain 1.8".
    > The issue is not with change, but with change that something that was
    > previously labeled non-changing in a defacto way .
    >


    Right to the point! I too love Ruby 1.9.1 and Matz! but...

    Ruby 1.8 (excluding 1.8.7) and Ruby 1.9 are really two different languages,
    I can deal with that as long as I know, and can control which of the two I'm
    using at any given time for any given application.

    Matz ceded maintenance of the "1.8" stream and moved on to 1.9 some time
    ago. The 1.8.7 release, rather than simply fixing bugs and maintaining
    compatibility, was attracted by "shiny objects" from 1.9 and wreaked havoc
    on some important consumers of Ruby, exacerbated by the eagerness of
    downstream package maintainers to keep up without understanding the
    ramifications of the breach of the implication of compatibility between
    versions with the same minor version number.

    Ruby 1.8.6 represents the latest version of the old Ruby language, 1.9.1 is
    the latest version of the new Ruby language, Ruby 1.8.7 is a mutant which
    just muddies the waters.

    --
    Rick DeNatale

    Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
    Rick DeNatale, Feb 12, 2009
    #19
  20. Gregory Brown

    James Coglan Guest

    [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    2009/2/12 Jeremy Henty <>

    > On 2009-02-11, Pit Capitain <> wrote:
    > > 2009/2/11 Rados?aw Bu?at <>:
    > >> h={}
    > >> h[{"foo" => 1}] = 100
    > >> p h[{"foo" => 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,

    >
    > No it doesn't. Most people would expect 1.8.7 to yield the same
    > result as 1.8.6 . That is the point.




    Though I fall on the 'unhappy' side, this change is clearly fine: 1.8.6
    behaviour is clearly a bug and should be fixed, that's the point of bug fix
    releases. Relying on buggy behaviour is a bad idea, and so is making changes
    to ostensibly correct behaviour in minor releases.
    James Coglan, Feb 12, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    992
    Roedy Green
    Nov 12, 2005
  2. Ed Jay
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    425
    Neredbojias
    Dec 21, 2005
  3. richard
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    597
    Hywel Jenkins
    Sep 28, 2006
  4. Daniel Martin
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    167
    Daniel Martin
    Sep 6, 2006
  5. Gregory Brown
    Replies:
    171
    Views:
    1,206
    David A. Black
    Feb 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page