From: Joshua Collins Date: 2009-05-21T07:52:46+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby 1.8 vs. Ruby 1.9 --001e680f17a452b8e9046a5fe216 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Tom, that makes a lot of sense! :-) On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote: > Joshua Collins wrote: > >> What about 'Programming Ruby 1.9: The Pragmatic Programmers' Guide' ? >> >> I know they have a 1.8 version of the book as well, but does the 1.9 >> version >> of the book go over 1.8 and 1.9 both? >> >> I also saw a book promoted here on the list called, 'The Well-Grounded >> Rubyist'. It mainly covers 1.9 as well. >> >> Have any of you read these two as well? >> >> I will take a look at that O'Reilly's book ... I have not seen that one >> yet. >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Michael J. I. Jackson < >> mjijackson@gmail.com >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> If you're looking for a good book that covers both 1.8 and 1.9, I >>> highly recommend O'Reilly's "The Ruby Programming Language". It's the >>> most comprehensive and concise reference that I've found, and it >>> bridges the gap between 1.8 and 1.9 nicely, explaining the differences >>> between the two as you go. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joshua Collins >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I was wondering the exact same thing! >>>> >>>> Before I knew 1.9 was coming out I got a 1.8 book, and I have gone >>>> >>>> >>> through >>> >>> >>>> it. However, I am wondering if I should get a 1.9 book now and learn it. >>>> >>>> I have not started any major projects using Ruby just yet, and am >>>> curious >>>> >>>> >>> if >>> >>> >>>> I should practice with 1.8 some before I learn 1.9 or just jump into 1.9 >>>> >>>> >>> and >>> >>> >>>> start using it for projects? >>>> >>>> My only concern is the lack of Gem support 1.9 might have right now. Is >>>> >>>> >>> it >>> >>> >>>> something a new comer should worry with? Or, should I just forget the >>>> >>>> >>> lack >>> >>> >>>> of Gem support and know that Gem's will eventually update to 1.9 and new >>>> Gems will be made for 1.9. >>>> >>>> Anyhow, I know that I will want to learn 1.9 at some point. I just do >>>> not >>>> want to jump in and be a bad position to progress in my learning because >>>> >>>> >>> of >>> >>> >>>> 1.9 set backs because it is so new. >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hooopo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so >>>>> many lib . >>>>> and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy >>>>> for him. >>>>> >>>>> ps: sorry for my poor English. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > Another perspective on this: I'm developing a major personal project (into > my 4th month on it), and have been unable to use 1.9 due to key gems still > not working in 1.9. However, due to moderate level of Ruby knowledge, I must > rather often consult a reference. The one I have is Thomas' 3rd edition of > "Programming Ruby". It focuses on 1.9, but seems to distinctly point out > where 1.9 is different from 1.8.x. > > What I want to emphasize is two things: > > 1. depending upon the gems you need, 1.9 may or may not be usable by you. > For me, it's not yet. > 2. my principal reference, nevertheless, is a book devoted to 1.9. I have > yet to get in trouble using this book. Most of the time I don't worry at all > about version differences, and my code just works (well, > usually...er...eventually). > > So, get a good, up-to-date reference book, and there are several I'd > personally be happy with, and just start coding. As has been said before on > this list, many times, the differences between 1.8 and 1.9 are meaningful > but not earthshaking, at least not to me. > > t. > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist > Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226 > << tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email) > << TomCloyd.com >> (website) << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental > health weblog) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > --001e680f17a452b8e9046a5fe216--