If you are unhappy 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.

    -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
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gregory Brown

    James Gray Guest

    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 1.8.8).

    James Edward Gray II
    James Gray, Feb 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gregory Brown

    James Coglan Guest

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

    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+
    > 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.
    James Coglan, Feb 11, 2009
    #3
  4. Gregory Brown

    Alex Fenton Guest

    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
    Alex Fenton, Feb 11, 2009
    #4
  5. [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 <>

    > 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 1.8.8).
    >
    > James Edward Gray II
    >
    >
    Louis-Philippe, Feb 11, 2009
    #5
  6. 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.
    David Masover, Feb 11, 2009
    #6
  7. 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
    Rados³aw Bu³at, Feb 11, 2009
    #7
  8. 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.
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Feb 11, 2009
    #8
  9. 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.
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Feb 11, 2009
    #9
  10. 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.
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Feb 11, 2009
    #10
  11. I'm very unhappy. Come on people! Use standard versioning:

    1.MAJOR_VERSION.MINOR_VERSION

    Should mean that after each MINOR_VERSION change I won't loose
    compatibility of my code, and only known bugs will be fixed or
    performance improved! Backporting is unnecesary and confusing. Most
    people will stay on 1.8.6 (including me on my servers) until most of
    applications will work with 1.9.1.

    Leave alone 1.8 branch, don't do such stupid things like You want to!!


    +1 is not enough!
    +666! ;}
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
    Daniel Dettlaff, Feb 11, 2009
    #11
  12. Gregory Brown

    Aaron Turner Guest

    +1

    #include <all the other comments so far>

    --
    Aaron Turner
    http://synfin.net/
    http://tcpreplay.synfin.net/ - Pcap editing and replay tools for Unix & Windows
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
    temporary Safety,
    deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    -- Benjamin Franklin
    Aaron Turner, Feb 11, 2009
    #12
  13. As a new Ruby user coming to the language, I've found it fairly
    confusing as to which Ruby I should be using. I understand that 1.8.6
    via Pickaxe is a standard and so is 1.9.1 via David Black's upcoming
    book.

    Coming from other projects, it would seem to me that making changes to
    1.8.x that aren't backwards compatible is a confusing message. I don't
    like the idea of have parts of 1.8.x incompatible with the rest of it.
    Thats nonsense.

    +42 for not breaking backwards compatibility. 1.8.x made it this far,
    no need to introduce changes that are already in place in 1.9.x.

    -Zac

    On Feb 11, 2009, at 12:10 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?
    >
    > 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
    >
    Zachary Brown, Feb 11, 2009
    #13
  14. +1

    I had a brief foray into 1.8.7 and had problems deploying code to some
    servers that were running 1.8.6 so now use 1.8.6.

    Will switch to 1.9.x when all the stuff I need works with it, but
    until then I'd really appreciate a proper and consistent 1.8.x branch
    that didn't diverge into being a halfway house.

    Backported stuff isn't what I want at all - when I want 1.9.x features
    (and everything works with them) I'll move to 1.9 but please leave 1.8
    alone!

    Rupert
    Rupert Voelcker, Feb 11, 2009
    #14
  15. Gregory Brown

    pat eyler Guest

    At work, we've already been bitten by 1.8.6 -> 1.8.7 problems.
    I can't tell you how much I don't want to see 1.8.8 move even
    further away from 1.8.6.

    Please, leave the 1.8 line as compatible as possible, leave
    the API breakage to the 1.8 -> 1.9 migration.

    On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Zachary Brown <> wrote:
    > As a new Ruby user coming to the language, I've found it fairly confusing as
    > to which Ruby I should be using. I understand that 1.8.6 via Pickaxe is a
    > standard and so is 1.9.1 via David Black's upcoming book.
    >
    > Coming from other projects, it would seem to me that making changes to 1.8.x
    > that aren't backwards compatible is a confusing message. I don't like the
    > idea of have parts of 1.8.x incompatible with the rest of it. Thats
    > nonsense.
    >
    > +42 for not breaking backwards compatibility. 1.8.x made it this far, no
    > need to introduce changes that are already in place in 1.9.x.
    >
    > -Zac
    >
    > On Feb 11, 2009, at 12:10 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?
    >>
    >> 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
    >>

    >
    >
    >




    --
    thanks,
    -pate
    -------------------------
    Duty makes us do things, Love make us do things well.
    http://on-ruby.blogspot.com
    http://eldersjournal.blogspot.com
    pat eyler, Feb 11, 2009
    #15
  16. Gregory Brown

    Phlip Guest

    > 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.


    If it has to use parts of the new parser, can it use Ripper??
    Phlip, Feb 11, 2009
    #16
  17. On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

    > 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.


    Yeah, look what it did to Forth.

    -- Matt
    It's not what I know that counts.
    It's what I can remember in time to use.
    Matt Lawrence, Feb 11, 2009
    #17
  18. On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Matt Lawrence <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Yeah, look what it did to Forth.


    Don't just say it, show it.

    http://vividpicture.com/aleks/atari/forth.jpg

    -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
    #18
  19. Gregory Brown

    Sam Guest

    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?
    >
    > 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
    >



    +1
    Sam, Feb 11, 2009
    #19
  20. Matt Lawrence wrote:
    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Yeah, look what it did to Forth.


    The process of ANS standardization focused the Forth community and
    produced a syntax and semantics that are well-regarded in today's Forth
    community. I wouldn't be using Forth today if it weren't for the ANS
    standard!

    --
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

    I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Feb 11, 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. Matt Feinstein

    Unhappy with numarray docs

    Matt Feinstein, Jun 1, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    287
    Terry Reedy
    Jun 1, 2005
  2. richard
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    597
    Hywel Jenkins
    Sep 28, 2006
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    337
    Ian Collins
    Jun 25, 2006
  4. Didg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    113
  5. Gregory Brown
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    244
    Tony Arcieri
    Feb 16, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page