On Dec 2, 3:59=A0pm, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br... / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, The Higgs bozo <higgs.b... / gmail.com> wro=
te:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it
> > wasn't given a clean break with the 2.0 name? =A0I know Matz had his ow=
n
> > ideas for 2.0, but why couldn't he call his version 3.0?
>
> > There's a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists. =A0Rub=
y
> > has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and
> > 1.9 represents a big improvement from the past. =A0But the name 1.9 doe=
s
> > not communicate the newness of it. =A0It looks like just another releas=
e
> > of the same.
>
> > On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter. =A0=
But
> > on the other hand it's problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 i=
s
> > quite different despite its name. =A0The 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

Maybe so, but then what kind of change is x + 1?

1.9 is "major major" if you compare to anything since 1.4. I mean
YARV? Come on.

However, I'll make a wild guess here... Matz wants to introduce the
real Ruby 2.0 sooner rather than later. If he labeled 1.9 as 2.0, he
would be force to hold off a while... okay, one can dream ;)

T.