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