From: Gregory Brown Date: 2008-12-03T07:23:10+09:00 Subject: Re: Why is Ruby 1.9 not called Ruby 2.0? On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Trans wrote: > > > 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? I follow this pattern for my projects, and I wonder this myself. I reserve x + 1 for something that will 'totally change' a project. For example, Replacing PDF::Writer with Prawn in Ruport will result in Ruport 2.0, because it's going to break absolutely everything. So I think x + 1 is reserved for whenever a crazy party is in order, or at least a crazy riot. ;) -greg -- Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com "Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts: http://rubybestpractices.com