# Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0 **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [June 16, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586 "2006-06-16T13:00:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/1 "2006-06-16T13:00:56Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/2 "2006-06-16T13:19:25Z")
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](http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/197229) Or, if you prefer the forum: [Ruby-dev summary 28637 - 28714 - Ruby - Ruby-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. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 1:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/3 "2006-06-16T13:47:33Z")
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](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](http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/rc2005/mgp00006.html) Alex ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/4 "2006-06-16T15:19:24Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/5 "2006-06-16T16:09:08Z")
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](http://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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/6 "2006-06-16T16:01:34Z")
On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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/](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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/7 "2006-06-16T17:16:56Z")
On 6/16/06, Austin Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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/](http://new.ruby-lang.org/en/about/) (where, what’s currently on that page could go into the “present” section). —John ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/8 "2006-06-16T16:57:15Z")
On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/9 "2006-06-16T17:26:28Z")
Of course it makes sense to know about the future of Ruby 😉 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. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/10 "2006-06-16T17:32:54Z")
On 6/16/06, Alex N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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. 🙂 Rake is a released (and wonderful!) build tool by Jim W… It is a pure ruby replacement for the traditional make tool. Jacob F. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 6:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/11 "2006-06-16T18:04:36Z")
On 6/16/06, Alex N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt)), and get involved any time. Enjoy! 🙂 Sidenote: you might consider reading up a bit more about a project before giving advice about it being more open. —John ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/12 "2006-06-16T18:14:12Z")
On 6/16/06, Austin Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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](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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/13 "2006-06-16T17:39:20Z")
On 6/16/06, Alex N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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](http://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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/14 "2006-06-16T18:52:02Z")
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 🙂 -Mat ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/15 "2006-06-16T19:10:37Z")
> > > > > “A” == Alex N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/16 "2006-06-16T19:04:29Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > On 6/16/06, Alex N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/17 "2006-06-16T19:13:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/18 "2006-06-16T19:29:32Z")
Logan C. wrote: > > > > That is amazing. You’ve taken RTFM to a whole new level. I like it. 🙂 Yeah, although it makes me look dumb, I like it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/19 "2006-06-16T19:32:56Z")
On 6/16/06, Alex N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/20 "2006-06-16T23:21:22Z")
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 [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586.md?page=2)