guys, I didn’t find the schedule in the official site.
Thanks.
Rockydd wrote:
guys, I didn’t find the schedule in the official site.
There is no schedule yet.
Patience, my friend. Ruby 1.9 hasn’t even been released yet!
If I had to guess, I would say: Ruby 1.9 is currently planned to be
released at the end of January 2009. As soon as the general public
gets their hands on Ruby 1.9, there’s likely to be a number of
problems that need to be ironed out in subsequent minor releases,
which is going to take something between a couple of months and a
couple of years.
After that, the next step is the ISO specification of Ruby. This is
likely to take another couple of years.
Only then is work on Ruby 2.0 going to start. Ruby 2.0 is a very
ambitious project, so it is probably going to take several years to
complete. (Ruby 1.8 to Ruby 1.9 took 5.5 years, but Ruby 1.9 is not
nearly as ambitious as Ruby 2.0.)
So, my completely un-educated guess, pulled out of thin air, would be
that Ruby 2.0 is going to be released sometime in this century, but
not before 2013.
jwm
After that, the next step is the ISO specification of Ruby. This is
likely to take another couple of years.
Are you implying that the ISO specification delays or halts Ruby
development?
I am probably understanding incorrectly, but just for a quick statement
- I am using ruby since many years because I think it is a truly great
programming language. I am not interested per se in grand ISO
specifications or similar, I am more eager to see how the language
evolves rather than how it gets taken into business rooms or to Spec
teams.
Ruby 2.0 not before 2013 sounds as if Ruby has completely grinded to a
halt.
I simply do not understand your reasoning and I regard it as wrong.
(For the record though, in future retrospect … it will be interesting
who of us was incorrect about the release dates 
)
On Nov 16, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Rockydd wrote:
guys, I didn’t find the schedule in the official site.
Thanks.
Forgive me for saying this, but I think that version numbers are
completely the wrong way to think about programming languages! Sure,
maybe at first, when a language is young and not capable of much, it
makes sense to call it 0.8 or 1.0 or whatnot, but I think Ruby is past
that point. I think this was apparent in Dave T. “Fork Ruby” talk.
Ruby will advance through new implementations, new library methods,
new variants, even if it doesn’t progress through new versions.
The simplest way to think about it is to look at other languages.
Languages like C, C++, SmallTalk, and Fortran don’t have versions,
they have specifications. Those specifications, though, work like
Ruby’s versions in some sense. That is, in one way, the Ruby version
is the version for MRI, and in another way, the Ruby version describes
a set of functionality that any other implementation must provide to
call itself Ruby. So, think of the Major and Minor version numbers
like a spec (1.6, 1.8, 1.9), and the revision and patchlevel numbers
are more specific to MRI.
Now, look at something like Fortran. I know lot’s of people who are
still writing Fortran 77 code. That’s a language that was designed 31
years ago! Does that mean it’s a dead or static language? Not by a
long shot. Companies like Intel, IBM, and the Portland Group are still
improving on F77 compilers, adding in support for SIMD and the like.
Look at C++. It’s working off a standard that’s 10 years old. Sure,
there’s a new standard forthcoming, but much of what will appear in
the new standard are things that people have already included in
libraries like Boost, or in experimental branches of GCC and whatnot.
Also, consider that when Ruby 2.0 comes out, it will probably require
a lot of in-depth work by the alternative implementation authors. It’s
probably best if that process takes a while. I’m thinking that the
2013-2015 time frame for Ruby 2.0 sounds just about right.
My 2¢, anyway…
Cheers,
Josh
Only then is work on Ruby 2.0 going to start. Ruby 2.0 is a very
ambitious project, so it is probably going to take several years to
complete. (Ruby 1.8 to Ruby 1.9 took 5.5 years, but Ruby 1.9 is not
nearly as ambitious as Ruby 2.0.)
What do you mean by “more ambitious”? Could you expand on that?
In a way I am a bit afraid, 'cause if history is any indication,
usually this “grandeous schemes” end up taking forever and eventually
stall. Examples are Copland for the Apple, Vista for Microsoft (the
original project), Perl 6, etc…
Wouldn’t a more “evolutionary” approach suite best? Or is there some
feature of Ruby 2.0 that requires a total revolution and can’t be done
otherwise? What’s so wrong with Ruby 1.9?
Thank you
Diego
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:59:09 -0800, Rockydd wrote:
guys, I didn’t find the schedule in the official site.
Thanks.
The short answer is that we’ve long since abandoned the idea of
considering 1.9 to be the unstable experimental branch that leads to
version of 2.0. From what I’ve heard, Ruby 1.9 will be considered stable
when 1.9.1 is released in January or so.
–Ken