Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0

I was looking for a list of what is to be fixed or added to version 1.9
and what is slated for Ruby 2.0.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Thanks

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:01, Reggie Mr wrote:

I was looking for a list of what is to be fixed or added to version
1.9
and what is slated for Ruby 2.0.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Here’s the latest summary, posted on Wednesday. It has pointers to
other information.
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/197229

Or, if you prefer the forum: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/69365

Also, searching Google for ruby 1.9 yields some really good results.
It should probably have been your first stop, to be honest.

matthew smillie.

On Friday 16 June 2006 12:01, Reggie Mr wrote:

I was looking for a list of what is to be fixed or added to version 1.9
and what is slated for Ruby 2.0.

Mauricio F. maintains a list of changes present in the Ruby 1.9
CVS.
http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?Changes+in+Ruby+1.9
Many of these will be present in Ruby 2.0, others are just experiments
and
could be dropped at any time. Also check out Matz’s slides from RubyConf
2005:
http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/rc2005/mgp00006.html

Alex

Matthew S. wrote:

Also, searching Google for ruby 1.9 yields some really good results.
It should probably have been your first stop, to be honest.

matthew smillie.

The first step should have been a link on the Ruby website, to be
honest.

Thanks

On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Robert D. wrote:

honest.

Thanks

Surprisingly the Ruby website does not seem to be a good starting
point for
that particular request, maybe I am just blind.

I feel often feel like ruby-lang.org is difficult to use. What I’ve
seen of the new site looks like a big improvement, though. Looking
forward to that.
-Mat

On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [email protected] wrote:

Thanks

Surprisingly the Ruby website does not seem to be a good starting point
for
that particular request, maybe I am just blind.

Cheers

Robert

Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.


Deux choses sont infinies : l’univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l’univers, je n’en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

  • Albert Einstein

On 6/16/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:

production. As far as I know, it won’t be released in the same sense
that 1.8 has.

Ruby 2.0 doesn’t yet exist, so it doesn’t make sense to have a link on
the Ruby home page to it.

I think a good number of Ruby users (and prospective users) are
probably curious about where Ruby’s been (brief history), where it is
(current major features), and where’s it’s going.

That “where it’s going” item could include a little something about 1.9
and 2.0.

Maybe a quick “past, present, future” blurb could go here:
http://new.ruby-lang.org/en/about/ (where, what’s currently on that
page could go into the “present” section).

—John

On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [email protected] wrote:

Matthew S. wrote:

Also, searching Google for ruby 1.9 yields some really good results.
It should probably have been your first stop, to be honest.
The first step should have been a link on the Ruby website, to be
honest.

Not really. 1.9 is a development test area. It’s not for use in
production. As far as I know, it won’t be released in the same sense
that 1.8 has.

Ruby 2.0 doesn’t yet exist, so it doesn’t make sense to have a link on
the Ruby home page to it.

-austin

Of course it makes sense to know about the future of Ruby :wink:

Everybody wants to get excited long before the production release.
And I am sorry to say this, but you guys should look at Microsoft, and
the way they advertise with their CTP builds.

And many people, including me, are waiting for Rake.
Where should get the status of Rake ?
Is YARV the promised Rake ?

The development of Ruby should be a lot more open.

On 6/16/06, Alex N. [email protected] wrote:

And many people, including me, are waiting for Rake.
Where should get the status of Rake ?
Is YARV the promised Rake ?

I think you mean Rite. :slight_smile: Rake is a released (and wonderful!) build
tool by Jim W… It is a pure ruby replacement for the traditional
make tool.

Jacob F.

On 6/16/06, Alex N. [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

The development of Ruby should be a lot more open.

Actually, it’s a regular, open, free software project. You can
subscribe to the core dev mailing list (“ruby-core”), download the
source (see the license at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt),
and get involved any time. Enjoy! :slight_smile:

Sidenote: you might consider reading up a bit more about a project
before giving advice about it being more open.

—John

On 6/16/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:

Not really. 1.9 is a development test area. It’s not for use in
production. As far as I know, it won’t be released in the same sense
that 1.8 has.

It is my understanding that 1.9.1 will be a production release
according to _why: http://redhanded.hobix.com/cult/rubyKaigi2006.html

— clip from blog —
Matz announced his plan on the new stable release, Ruby 1.9.1, which
will be released at Christmas3 2007, with the Ruby 1.9.0 branch being
developed. He will keep on maintaining Ruby 1.8.x as well. If he has
to apply security patches, the forth version number (1.9.1.1, 1.9.1.x
?) would be possible. Ruby 1.9.1 will include local variables, M17N
and YARV inclusion2, not some functionalities that are supposed to
feature in Ruby 2.0 such as the new GC, classbox, selected namespace,
keyword arguments and method combination. This Ruby 1.9.1 might be
numbered as Ruby 2.0, though.

It is possible to put Rubygems into the standard libraries in Ruby
1.9.1, said Matz, and he needs to talk more with the Rubygems guys.

— end blog clip —

pth

On 6/16/06, Alex N. [email protected] wrote:

The development of Ruby should be a lot more open.
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. Ruby is an open-source project with
open development. You can watch the 1.9 tree very easily; you can find
rcrchive.net just as easily. You can join ruby-core (where
non-Japanese development discussions happen). Ruby2 doesn’t need
people advertising it – the syntax is going to change. When that
happens, people will scream.

YARV is Rite (not Rake, which is completely separate from Ruby
development).

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m getting really tired of
know-it-all newbies who really do think they know what Ruby needs when
they’ve barely written five lines in it.

-austin

On Jun 16, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Austin Z. wrote:

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m getting really tired of
know-it-all newbies who really do think they know what Ruby needs when
they’ve barely written five lines in it.

Me too. But it’s a side effect of popularity. Maybe that’ll provide
a little silver lining :slight_smile:
-Mat

“A” == Alex N. [email protected] writes:

A> Because from where I am standing, there is a huge gap between the
A> development done in Japan, and the rest of the world.

Just learn japanese (it’s a really nice language) and you’ll be able to
speak
with Japanese developpers.

Guy Decoux

Austin Z. wrote:

On 6/16/06, Alex N. [email protected] wrote:
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. Ruby is an open-source project with
open development.
Really ?
Because from where I am standing, there is a huge gap between the
development done in Japan, and the rest of the world.

YARV is Rite (not Rake, which is completely separate from Ruby
development).
Yeah, I know what Rake is.
I’m just tired after 8 hours of work.
Sorry for the confusion.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m getting really tired of
know-it-all newbies who really do think they know what Ruby needs when
they’ve barely written five lines in it.
And I’m getting tired of gurus that get bitten by their arse whenever
someone challenges their arrogance.

If my posts offend you, please ignore them.

I am sorry, but I meant something else.
Please excuse me, but English is not my native language.

What I meant was … should have more publicity, because newbies
don’t like searching miles of email messages on mailing lists to get the
status of the project.

Logan C. wrote:

That is amazing. You’ve taken RTFM to a whole new level. I like it. :slight_smile:

Yeah, although it makes me look dumb, I like it :slight_smile:

On 6/16/06, Alex N. [email protected] wrote:

I am sorry, but I meant something else.
Please excuse me, but English is not my native language.

What I meant was … should have more publicity, because newbies
don’t like searching miles of email messages on mailing lists to get the
status of the project.

I’m sorry, but that’s not my problem. If Matz isn’t ready to have
details about Ruby 2 on a webpage linked from Ruby-lang, then it’s not
there. The status is that Ruby 2 isn’t there yet. The newest status
suggests that there will be a production Ruby 1.9 as of Christmas
2007, but that is very new (this week, from the Japanese Ruby
conference).

It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of
email messages and without being asinine. It still doesn’t belong on
the official Ruby webpage.

-austin

Austin Z. wrote:

It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of
email messages and without being asinine. It still doesn’t belong on
the official Ruby webpage.

So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from
some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website?

Get a clue and stop being so arrogant.

You have turned a simple request into a large nothing!

If you don’t like what I’ve said, don’t answer my post.

Thanks

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs