Yugui wrote, "Ruby 1.8 series has been used since 2003 and many great products were born on it. Today Ruby 1.9 series starts its history as 1.8 series did." This suggests that, as 1.8 superseded 1.6, 1.9 now supersedes 1.8, making it the current Ruby (though 1.8 remains for those who prefer to use it). Is that a reasonable interpretation? 1.8.8 is planned for release. Why, and when does 1.8 development stop? Put another way, for how long would people be expected that new code they write work on both 1.9 and 1.8? Or at what point would a developer tell users of 1.8 that backwards compatibility is no longer a priority? Yes, I known these are broad questions. I'm trying to get a sense of how the transition is intended and practiced. -- James B. www.happycamperstudios.com - Wicked Cool Coding www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
on 2009-02-01 07:22
on 2009-02-01 08:20
James B. wrote: > 1.8.8 is planned for release. Why, and when does 1.8 development stop? Do any of the leading Killer Apps, such as Rails, support 1.9? > Put another way, for how long would people be expected that new code > they write work on both 1.9 and 1.8? Or at what point would a developer > tell users of 1.8 that backwards compatibility is no longer a priority? What did the transition from 1.6 to 1.8 look like?
on 2009-02-01 13:34
Phlip wrote: > What did the transition from 1.6 to 1.8 look like? It was pretty easy. Little fundamental changed, but a bunch of new useful classes like StringIO were added, and you could get them in 1.6 by adding the shim library. In part, that's what 1.8.7 gives you. But note that: - 1.9 has features which can't be back-ported to 1.8 (e.g. Fiber) - 1.9 runs a completely different engine under the hood, and bugs are still being turned up it. - 1.9 makes several important non-backwards-compatible changes, which break not only your own code but the code in libraries that you use. - some of us remain unconvinced about some of the new syntax, like the ugly -> lambda, and are still secretly hoping that they will be removed :-) Of these, I think the lack of library compatibility and the different engine may be the most important. Lots of people stayed on 1.6.8 for a long time not because of any major incompatibilities with 1.8, but because it was a stable and trusted platform.
on 2009-02-01 18:03
On Feb 1, 2009, at 4:34 AM, Brian C. wrote: > :-) > I like the "stabby proc". Just be careful that you don't poke your eye out! Blessings, TwP