From: Frederick Cheung <frederick.cheung@...>
Date: 2007-12-27T18:58:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Purpose of Ruby 1.9?


On 27 Dec 2007, at 08:45, Xavier Noria wrote:

> On Dec 27, 2007, at 8:53 AM, botp wrote:
>
>> On Dec 27, 2007 7:11 AM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
>>>> I'm a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an
>>>> immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn't.
>>> Me too:
>>> http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/ruby-19right-fo.html
>>
>> will it be "safe" to say that the baptism of fire for ruby1.9 is
>> lettting it run/support rails 2.0.2 without errors?
>
> Wouldn't that be a Rails goal?
>
> The reason Rails does not run on 1.9 are to my knowledge  
> incompatibilities, it is not due to 1.9 not being production-ready.  
> People have been sending compatibility patches to Rails, but work  
> remains to be done.

I know of at least one bug in 1.9 that breaks certain bits of rails (http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/14379 
). But it's true that a lot of stuff is just different, that's  
expected. Ruby 1.9 is not in the general case a drop-in replacement  
for 1.8

Fred