I had this on "postponed", and I just realized. Sorry.

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 02:13:41PM +0900, Francis Hwang wrote:
> 
> On Jan 31, 2005, at 11:40 PM, Trans wrote:
> 
> >Francis,
> >
> >Your analysis is clear and consistant but I believe it is shallow. Ruby
> >as a language should always be in flux. Dynamic with its creation as it
> >is in its nature. Backward compatiability is not strictly neccessary,
> >it is nothing more the a vehicle for the user to more easily transition
> >to the next update. If you require stability then you should never
> >upgrade beyond a teeny. But if you are upgrading to gain features,
> >which is the reasonable reason to do so, then you have nothing to
> >complain about --you are getting exactly what you are asking for:
> >changes.
> 
> Not all programmers are operating in an environment in which they have 
> complete control of their Ruby dependencies, for example, the case I 
> [...]

   That's it. And even if you do, when you have a big pool of applications
running in production servers, it must be _very_ annoying having to figure out
what changes you need, one by one.

> every year, I can easily understand how somebody who's thinking of 
> advocating for Ruby at his workplace might find this sort of attitude 
> about backwards compatibility off-putting.

   Amen! That's more or less my case right now: I would *love* to use Ruby in
my day job, but I just can't push too much a language that is going to have
"compatibility problems" of this sort. We make lots of small applications, and
upgrading Ruby on a production server would be like hell (and perhaps we would
need it from time to time, e.g. when upgrading from Woody to Sarge), fixing
every Ruby application.

   And, w.r.t. the reply from James Britt, he said:

> Sad, but unless you are paying someone you shouldn't expect
> developers to be too concerned with writing new code that runs on
> older versions of Ruby. (And I expect this is true in most developer
> communities, so nothing scary about Ruby in this regard.)

   Yes, you're right, you can't "expect" developers to do that, but I think
Ruby would gain acceptance if more developers tried to remain compatible.

   And I think other languages (read: Perl and probably Python) care _a lot
more_ in that regard. Please don't get me started on PHP, for several reasons
;-)

   Oh, BTW, I was concerned with cases two and three (breakage when upgrading
and new code that requires "latest" release).

-- 
Esteban Manchado Vel?zquez <zoso / foton.es> - http://www.foton.es
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es