On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, The Higgs bozo <higgs.bozo / gmail.com> 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


-- 
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