On 6/1/07, Ivan M. firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Richard C. wrote:
It depends on your definition of ‘convenient’.
IMHO convinient is as in C#. There I don’t have to bother how are
strings stored in memroy, they just do work and are international.
It’s not that convenient. By default Ruby strings are 8-byte. You can
them Unicode strings very easily through a library (kCODE IIRC), and
will behave as unicode in a way that you don’t have to think about. You
have to use a different string type.
The problem occurs when you use code that you didn’t write that expects
strings to be single-byte. So every time you evaluate a Ruby library,
plugin or gem, you have to do more homework than you would in the
unicode centric Java or C#.
Well yes, but I would use UTF-8 instead.
Won’t there be a problem if the data is stored in UTF-16 (as far as I
know Orace, NVARCHAR uses 16-bit per symbol)
Every database worth using lets you specify the encoding of your string
and character types. Check your manuals or the Oracle forums. Anything
that is any way associated with web development supports UTF-8.
Also Ruby 1.9 is going to break/deprecate stuff - I wouldn’t develop against it
migrating from 1.8 -> 1.9 is going to be tricky
So why should anyone develop a new project against 1.8 if it is going to
Okay, you misunderstood me. There is a feature roadmap towards Ruby 2.0,
where major changes are coming in; the two biggest that I recall are
support and native/pre-emptive threads. The only reasonable way to
them are by altering the behaviour of core classes and the standard
This will mean that Ruby code of any sophistication written for Ruby
many libraries is likely to break.
Ruby 1.8 is not going away. Ruby is an open language, with a public
repository. Unlike with .Net say, where Microsoft distribute the runtime
binary only-form and can make older versions difficult to get. You have
obligation to migrate to the most recent version, and there is no
reason that multiple runtimes (application specific) cannot co-exist on
Chasing the latest release is really something that you only do with
languages. It’s not something that is generally done with open
If you are moving to Ruby 1.9, do it with a complete working
But isn’t it going to be tricky, as you’ve said?
It would be one hell of a lot easier than developing against a moving
target, not knowing if the issues in your code are your issues or
due to the latest release candidate.
Bleeding edge software development is for people who can spare a
lot of blood loss;
I dont have to be moving for now as I have no line of Ruby code (I have
only an idea in my head) for today. And no Ruby experience (I am C++,
C#, Java and T-SQL developer). I’ve chosen Ruby as it seems almost good
Yeah, its a great language. Make a point of checking out the JRuby
Its an exceptionally well developed Ruby runtime; it is considerably
than an interpreter or language bridge - the JRuby guys have basically
doubled the size of the Java platform (or Ruby platform depending on
Ruby is strong where Java is weak, and vice versa.
Have I understood you correctly - you think I should make it Ruby 1.8
and then do a tricky move when it comes?
Use Rails, where the most compelling features in Ruby 1.9/2.0 are
present: Unicode, native concurrency (via processes) and good
(via all those caching mechanisms). When the Rails guys go Ruby 1.9
Or better still, develop against Rails versions, not Ruby versions.
This advice can prove useful. I’ll think about it.