From: Jose Narvaez Date: 2011-01-23T00:35:05+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:34790] Re: [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? Bernard Lambeau wrote: >Dear Zeno, > >I would not like appearing too sarcastic, but there is something that I >definitely don't understand in this thread: > >* 80 mails ago, you started by saying "We are doing Ruby since over 10 >years". >* Ruby 1.9 has been officially announced on Dec. 2007 ( >http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/136553) > >How the hell is it possible to wake up in 2011 with some migrations problems >from 1.8.x to 1.9 ? > >Also, > >* The whole ruby community really enjoys that language everyday, >* Personally, I used to learn a lot of things since my shift to Ruby (BDD, >github, many agile methods, and so on), >* Among them, I learned to be somewhat attentive to incompatibilities >between 1.8.x and 1.9.x branches (thanks rvm, in passing) >* And so on. > >If you are doing Ruby since over 10 years, how do you explain that you >didn't learn the underlying philosophy (I'm using ruby since 2 years only, I >known that there is a lot to learn, but common ...) ?? > >In hope that your migration will eventually succeed, >Bernard > >On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Zeno Davatz wrote: > >> Issue #4239 has been updated by Zeno Davatz. >> >> >> Dear Mathew >> >> It seems that what you say, I say as well. I never said that if you write >> something for Ruby 1.9 it should work for Ruby 1.8 as well. I said the >> contrary: If you write something for Ruby 1.8 it should work on Ruby 1.9 as >> well. >> >> I exaggerated when I said we have to rewrite "all" our Libraries. But we >> have to rewrite a lot more then I expected. And ideally I would expect the >> same of Ruby as I expect of the Kernel. Upwards compatibility of old >> features. That should always work. >> >> Oniguruma is a nice example that should have been merged into mainline ages >> ago. But instead just some feature where cherry-picked. The core team still >> has not given me a reason for that decision. I guess it was taken "out of >> fear not to introduce to many new things to fast". But the Oniguruma-Patch >> should have been merged a lot more aggressive right from the beginning in >> 2002. >> >> What I am saying is "bridge". Think of a bridge as 1.8.8 to version 1.9.2. >> Maybe 1.8.9 could be another bridge to 1.9.3. >> >> Your idealism of compatibility in one direction suits me just fine. >> Compatibility combined with consistency. But the idea of being compatible >> just with in one paradigm as within 1.9 or within 1.8 that feels wrong to my >> mindset. But that is the way Matsumoto-san wants it. >> >> Best >> Zeno >> ---------------------------------------- >> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4239 >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org >> >>