# Why is Ruby 1.9 not called Ruby 2.0? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [December 2, 2008, 8:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-is-ruby-1-9-not-called-ruby-2-0/154668 "2008-12-02T20:19:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/higgsbozo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 8:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-is-ruby-1-9-not-called-ruby-2-0/154668/1 "2008-12-02T20:19:23Z")
Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it wasn’t given a clean break with the 2.0 name? I know Matz had his own ideas for 2.0, but why couldn’t he call his version 3.0? There’s a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. Ruby has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and 1.9 represents a big improvement from the past. But the name 1.9 does not communicate the newness of it. It looks like just another release of the same. On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But on the other hand it’s problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know. Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn’t happened yet, would it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call it 2.0? ---
**Author:** ![higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/higgsbozo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-is-ruby-1-9-not-called-ruby-2-0/154668/2 "2008-12-02T22:06:39Z")
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, The Higgs bozo [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But > on the other hand it’s problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is > quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know. > > Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn’t happened yet, would > it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call > it 2.0? In Ruby, major change is indicated by x.y.z → x.(y+1).z, not necessarily (x + 1).y.z ---
**Author:** ![higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/higgsbozo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 10:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-is-ruby-1-9-not-called-ruby-2-0/154668/3 "2008-12-02T22:47:40Z")
On Dec 2, 3:59 pm, “Gregory B.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > There’s a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. Ruby > > it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call > > it 2.0? > > In Ruby, major change is indicated by x.y.z → x.(y+1).z, not > necessarily (x + 1).y.z Maybe so, but then what kind of change is x + 1? 1.9 is “major major” if you compare to anything since 1.4. I mean YARV? Come on. However, I’ll make a wild guess here… Matz wants to introduce the real Ruby 2.0 sooner rather than later. If he labeled 1.9 as 2.0, he would be force to hold off a while… okay, one can dream 😉 T. ---
**Author:** ![higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/higgsbozo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 11:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-is-ruby-1-9-not-called-ruby-2-0/154668/4 "2008-12-02T23:30:26Z")
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > wasn’t given a clean break with the 2.0 name? I know Matz had his own > > > quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know. > > > > > Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn’t happened yet, would > > > it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call > > > it 2.0? > > > > In Ruby, major change is indicated by x.y.z → x.(y+1).z, not > > necessarily (x + 1).y.z > > Maybe so, but then what kind of change is x + 1? I follow this pattern for my projects, and I wonder this myself. I reserve x + 1 for something that will ‘totally change’ a project. For example, Replacing PDF::Writer with Prawn in Ruport will result in Ruport 2.0, because it’s going to break absolutely everything. So I think x + 1 is reserved for whenever a crazy party is in order, or at least a crazy riot. 😉 -greg ---
**Author:** ![higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@higgsbozo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/higgsbozo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-is-ruby-1-9-not-called-ruby-2-0/154668/5 "2008-12-03T17:11:28Z")
The Higgs bozo wrote: > On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. But > on the other hand it’s problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is > quite different despite its name. The casual observer may never know. > > Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn’t happened yet, would > it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call > it 2.0? Because Matz gets to decide what the version number is. No other reason than that 😃