Joan Iglesias wrote:
> I think, Ruby is now suffering to many changes, because it's very young 
> and because there isn't a big company behind (like in Java), that forces 
> backward compatibility ALWAYS.

I have also had incompatibility problems with Java.  But unlike Ruby, 
the fixes were not easy.  We tried to upgrade from 1.4 to 1.5.  It broke 
at least one of our web apps and I never DID figure out how to fix them. 
We ended up staying at 1.4 and just leaving it alone.

I'm not saying that future-proofing a language isn't desirable, but it's 
far from guaranteed on any language.  I think Ruby has done quite well, 
especially since they always state exactly what changed so you don't 
have to guess.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.