From: Trans Date: 2008-12-03T06:41:28+09:00 Subject: Re: Why is Ruby 1.9 not called Ruby 2.0? On Dec 2, 3:59 pm, "Gregory Brown" wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, The Higgs bozo wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > 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.