On 11 Feb 2009, at 19:55, Gregory Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Matt Lawrence  
> <matt / technoronin.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>>
>>> I've posted my opinions on Ruby-Core, but I'll summarize them here:
>>>
>>> 1. The Ruby community should proceed with all deliberate speed  
>>> towards
>>> ISO standardization of the language.
>>
>> Yeah, look what it did to Forth.
>
> Don't just say it, show it.
>
> http://vividpicture.com/aleks/atari/forth.jpg

Too many old Forth hands on here ;p

With all this back-porting it's as if the foreshadowed magnitude of  
Ruby 2.0 is making the core team nervous of turning 1.9 into a genuine  
stable branch, so instead they're forcing the stable features into 1.8  
instead. I'm sure this is a complete misreading of their intent on my  
part but it is a worrying path to be heading down.

I'll admit that so far I've not had any problems with 1.8.7 but my  
colleague Romek has been having a horrible time with its OpenSSL  
support and quite a few of the tools he's written with 1.8.6 no longer  
work. We're currently debating whether or not to bite the bullet and  
move to 1.9.1 - assuming the current crop of books are an accurate  
representation.

Anyway if I or another developer want 1.9 features and/or syntax we'll  
use 1.9 and the fact that some of us choose not to do so at this time  
is something I'd like to see respected by the core team.

+1


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason