[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:11149] Re: One source tree for Ruby & modules

From: "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...>
Date: 2001-02-20 04:06:58 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11149
Conrad Schneiker wrote:
> 
> Stephen White wrote:
> ...
> # Ruby programs can specify the version of Ruby they're written for,
> 
> They could, but most don't, AFAIK.
> 

I think this issue is significant.
And part of the reason is due to the extensions one may have installed.

In fact, the only way I have been able to safely deal with this issue
is for each script to specify which version of ruby to call in
the shebang line.

My sysadmin and I have managed to implement multiple simultaneous
versions of ruby on the same system in a methodic manner.
Any given version of ruby is accessed via "rubyNNN", e.g. "ruby162".
The most current version of ruby is additionally accessible via "ruby".
So, for example, when I write a script now, I specify ruby162.

When I upgrade to 1.6.3, we will install an additional version of ruby
accessible via "ruby163". And the old scripts continue to work fine.
I would write the new script using "ruby163". I can then upgrade
the other scripts at leisure.

If I didn't do it this way, I would have formidable migration tasks
just to be able to use a recent version.

So, in light of this, I would think that any type of a ruby versioning
system would have to require previous versions of ruby to also
be installed. Then the built-in versioning would be a benefit in
that I would not have to hardcode "#!/usr/local/bin/ruby162" into
the file, but rather let the versioning system decide.

But that would require a mandated, standard means of maintaining multiple
installations of ruby on any given system.

Guy N. Hurst

-- 
HurstLinks Web Development    http://www.hurstlinks.com/
Norfolk, VA  23510            (757)623-9688 FAX 623-0433
PHP/MySQL - Ruby/Perl - HTML/Javascript

In This Thread