# If you are unhappy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090 "2009-02-11T18:12:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 10
**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 14, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/181 "2009-02-14T20:23:24Z")
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 10:03 AM, aks [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > We expect _some_ compatibility issues with an 1.8 → 1.9 upgrade. > marginalized. > > People only have so much time and effort to work on problems. A > programming language is a tool to solve those problems. If the tool > causes MORE work, then another tool will be chosen instead. > > It’s really pretty simple. Yeah … my vote is for two _production_ versions of the Ruby syntax and semantics: 1. The current 1.8.6 2. The current 1.9.1 I think 1.8.7 was a failed experiment – an evolutionary dead end – that unfortunately got picked up by Linux distributors. I’m not sure who else picked it up. Maybe that’s the question we should be asking – who absolutely positively _must_ have the Ruby 1.8.7 syntax and semantics? Also, please note that I specifically called out syntax and semantics. I think platform-dependent optimizations, such as what Ruby Enterprise Edition has for 32-bit Linux and what Sun has been doing with JRuby are fair game. In fact, I encourage them and hope at some point to have the free time to contribute a few to the 1.9.1 branch. 🙂 And I certainly agree with Matz that the Ruby Enterprise Edition optimizations should somehow get into the main 1.8.x tree and not continue to live on as a fork. As far as I know they’re open source, so it’s “just a matter of merging patches.” 🙂 I didn’t make it to RubyConf 2008, but I was involved in 2006 and 2007, and I was under the impression that the planned “workflow” was that the alternative implementers would stay with the 1.8.6 syntax and semantics and that the core team would push ahead with the new syntax, semantics and YARV engine, with a 1.9 intermediate release and a 2.0 “final” release. I think that’s what Rubinius and JRuby have done, although JRuby seems to have also embraced 1.9 as a fully-functional implementation as well. I have no idea what’s happening with IronRuby. Is it even relevant any more? So yes, my vote is for Ruby 1.8.8 to have Ruby 1.8.6 syntax and semantics, all accumulated security patches, all accumulated bug fixes and all accumulated platform-dependent optimizations to the MRI core. But I’m only going to vote +1 because I’m trying to personally stay on the 1.9.1 → 2.0 branch. – 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 15, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/182 "2009-02-15T06:22:11Z")
Hi, At Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:10:58 +0900, Gregory B. wrote in [ruby-talk:327704]: > 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+ Could anyone summarize compatibility issues which really exist now? ---
**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 14, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/183 "2009-02-14T23:09:06Z")
James C. wrote: > Regardless of whether they’re _supposed_ to, the Rubies I’ve used before > 1.8.7 actually do iterate in insertion order. Could be machine/OS specific, > a fluke, whatever. The point is that 1.8.7 definitely does not iterate in > the order that keys appear in a literal, at least on my machine. If this is > supposed to now be defined behaviour I’ll investigate further and file a bug > if necessary. They only appeared to be ordered in the cases you saw, especially in cases of smaller hashes (fewer possible permutations of unordered). They never were actually ordered. This is the Truth. Naturally, unordered or “order unspecified” hashes may sometimes produce what seems to be ordered iteration. But it is entirely by chance. And this has come up countless times…someone will iterate their three-element hash and it will come out in insertion order. Then they’ll expand to a larger hash or a different implementation and it stops being ordered. They cry foul, ruby-talk intervenes, and they learn hashes are not ordered in 1.8.6. I don’t know what 1.8.7 does. 1.9.1 and JRuby (1.8.6 and 1.9.1 modes) both maintain hash keys in insertion order. Maintaining insertion order is simply a special case of unspecified ordering, so it’s valid moving forward to _add_ ordering, but not valid to take it away. - 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 15, 2009, 6:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/184 "2009-02-15T06:57:15Z")
Christopher D. wrote: > may mean some code just called GC.start for some other reason. > True, but that doesn’t change the conclusion. ---
**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 15, 2009, 1:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/185 "2009-02-15T13:47:26Z")
2009/2/15 Nobuyoshi N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > At Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:10:58 +0900, > Gregory B. wrote in [ruby-talk:327704]: > > > 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+ > > Could anyone summarize compatibility issues which really exist > now? The only things I remember from this long discussion are: - The new String#chars clashed with a method of Rails with the same name - It is not allowed anymore to create new objects during garbage collection (the SWIG problem) Both are at least questionable to being categorized as breaking backwards compatibility and seem to have been fixed. Everything else that had been said here and in other threads had to be withdrawn. 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 15, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/186 "2009-02-15T13:58:36Z")
Hi – On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Pit C. wrote: > The only things I remember from this long discussion are: > > - The new String#chars clashed with a method of Rails > with the same name > > - It is not allowed anymore to create new objects during > garbage collection (the SWIG problem) > > Both are at least questionable to being categorized as breaking > backwards compatibility and seem to have been fixed. Everything else > that had been said here and in other threads had to be withdrawn. I would just add that most of the issues brought up about 1.8.7 (questions as to why a “stepping stone” to 1.9 is needed, the unprecedented quantity of change for a teeny number (which I think is not in dispute; the core team has said that a decision was made to redefine the meaning of the numbering), the unprecedented amount of backporting, the impact on non-MRI interpreters, and, in particular, the dramatically increased likelihood that code being developed on the later version (1.8.7) would be completely, deeply incompatible with the earlier version (1.8.6)) – these issues, and many of the others that have been raised, are still there. If it were all just a matter of a few bumps along the way in running older code on the newer version, I’m sure we would not have been having all these discussions. Lots of the people who perceive problems have also gone through other 1.6 and 1.8 transitions; it’s not a crowd that likes to stir up problems for their own sake. So _something_ is different this time around. I hope we’ll be able to move through it smoothly and with creative solutions, but there are definitely complexities to this set of transitions that were not present in every previous transition. David – David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC Ruby/Rails consulting & training: [http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com) Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist ([The Well-Grounded Rubyist](http://manning.com/black2)) [http://www.wishsight.com](http://www.wishsight.com) =\> Independent, social wishlist management! ---
**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 15, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/187 "2009-02-15T14:20:17Z")
Hi, At Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:44:25 +0900, Pit C. wrote in [ruby-talk:328269]: > The only things I remember from this long discussion are: Thank you. > - It is not allowed anymore to create new objects during > garbage collection (the SWIG problem) This is an old issue which has been already fixed. ---
**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 15, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/188 "2009-02-15T14:51:57Z")
2009/2/15 David A. Black [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > I would just add that most of the issues brought up about 1.8.7 > (…) – these issues, and many of the others > that have been raised, are still there. Yes, this is a nice summary of the concerns. Maybe I read Nobu’s question too limited when he asked about problems with backwards compatibility. Maybe he meant general problems with adopting 1.8.7. Thanks for the reminder. 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 15, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/189 "2009-02-15T14:56:38Z")
Hi – On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Pit C. wrote: > 2009/2/15 David A. Black [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > > > I would just add that most of the issues brought up about 1.8.7 > > (…) – these issues, and many of the others > > that have been raised, are still there. > > Yes, this is a nice summary of the concerns. Maybe I read Nobu’s > question too limited when he asked about problems with backwards > compatibility. Maybe he meant general problems with adopting 1.8.7. I’m probably just on auto-pilot 🙂 It feels like a kind of perfect storm of small-to-medium issues, that emerge as one big issue, if that makes sense. David – David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC Ruby/Rails consulting & training: [http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com) Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist ([The Well-Grounded Rubyist](http://manning.com/black2)) [http://www.wishsight.com](http://www.wishsight.com) =\> Independent, social wishlist management! [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090.md?page=9)