From: "NARUSE, Yui" Date: 2011-01-19T21:10:39+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:34603] Re: [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? (2011/01/18 0:49), Zeno Davatz wrote: >> The year 2002 is the night before 1.8 is released, so we decided >> to import Oniguruma in 1.9. > > I still do not understand that decision. Based on what was that > decision taken? Why did you decide against applying the Patch for 1.8 > and instead introduced "half" of the Patch in Ruby 1.9? This truly > does make Ruby inconsistent. Why it makes Ruby inconsistent? > Yes, I know the Oniguruma gem. But I believe that gem should be > applied as patch to the code. Now you have a gem, you have a patch > and you have Ruby 1.9.2. Ruby should merge these features more > aggressively. Why we should merge even if Oniguruma introduces incompatilibity? >> "Consistency is not a goal of Ruby" is still correct. > Why is this not a goal? If you buy a car you want it to last as long > as possible. If you use software I would expect the same. Consistency > is key to nature and the environment. > > For me it is important to understand _why_ Ruby wants to be > inconsistent. Consistency sometimes conflict with compatibility, speed, usability, and so on. > When I boot into a new Kernel I expect it to boot. I do not expect a > Kernel Panic. > > The same goal would do Ruby well. > > But maybe I will understand if you can explain me why Ruby does not > want to be consistent. If you think consistency is like a Kernel Panic, your "consistency" is different from what we think. -- NARUSE, Yui