# If you are happy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091 "2009-02-11T18:14:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/1 "2009-02-11T18:14:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/2 "2009-02-11T18:19:02Z")
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 B. ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/3 "2009-02-11T18:19:38Z")
+1, even though you failed at changing the text of this mail compared to the other one. ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/4 "2009-02-11T18:23:45Z")
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dominik H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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. ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/5 "2009-02-11T19:00:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/6 "2009-02-11T21:32:55Z")
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM, John C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Gregory B. 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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/7 "2009-02-11T21:22:16Z")
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Gregory B. 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 C. Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639 Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632 PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid New Zealand ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/8 "2009-02-11T21:40:03Z")
On Feb 11, 10:12 am, Gregory B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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. 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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/9 "2009-02-11T22:23:40Z")
2009/2/11 Gregory B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > 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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/10 "2009-02-11T22:47:49Z")
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Pit C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > h={} h[{“foo” =\> 1}] = 100 p h[{“foo” =\> 1}] ruby 1.8.6 prints “nil”, 1.8.7 prints “100”. – Pozdrawiam Rados³aw Bu³at [http://radarek.jogger.pl](http://radarek.jogger.pl) - mój blog ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/11 "2009-02-11T23:13:43Z")
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:12:14AM +0900, Gregory B. 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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/12 "2009-02-11T23:03:06Z")
2009/2/11 Rados³aw Bu³at [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > 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, 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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/13 "2009-02-11T23:27:48Z")
\_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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/14 "2009-02-11T23:43:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/15 "2009-02-12T00:29:21Z")
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 G. II ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/16 "2009-02-12T01:20:20Z")
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Daniel B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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. ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/17 "2009-02-12T00:37:34Z")
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, \_why [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/18 "2009-02-12T11:27:15Z")
\_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 ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/19 "2009-02-12T13:58:30Z")
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Gregory B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)wrote: > 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/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) Twitter: [http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale](http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale) ---
**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 12:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091/20 "2009-02-12T12:50:10Z")
> 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. [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-happy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160091.md?page=2)