Live data from Hacker News

Ruby 1.8.7 retired

ruby-lang.org

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#21
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PSA: Do not use system Ruby - http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/54109839209/psa-do-not-use...

Correct. Don't use rvm or rbenv on your production Linux boxes. Use packaged Ruby there.

Er, why not? rvm was originally made for production use!

I've used rvm in production for major sites for years with no problems whatsoever, in fact I believe it is best practise. Do you have any reasons for your preference for packaged ruby?

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#22
That's exactly why I went with Django/Python instead of RoR/Ruby.

I have no problem with keeping software up-to-date but I don't want to make that a main task because some "cool" kids easily get bored and keep phasing out stuff which break production apps and/or causes security issues.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#23
post #14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup it's a shame an operating system released as early as this year (mountain lion) came with 1.8.7 because it will be around for quite a while. We recently had to make the difficult decision to continue support of it in a new release because of CentOS, Mountain Lion etc... At least 2.0.0p195 is indeed in Mavericks.

Are there people that do programming on macs not use tools like macports or homebrew?

There's gentoo/alt and fink which predates DarwinPorts. I'm sure there is even a pkgsrc user out there. I've occasionally used this one called make. It's sort of a meta language to homebeer. In fact it comes in two flavors pmake and gmake. =P

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#24
post #23
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there people that do programming on macs not use tools like macports or homebrew?

There's gentoo/alt and fink which predates DarwinPorts. I'm sure there is even a pkgsrc user out there. I've occasionally used this one called make. It's sort of a meta language to homebeer. In fact it comes in two flavors pmake and gmake. =P

You forgot bsdmake ... which up until OS X ML was still available on OS X.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#25

That's exactly why I went with Django/Python instead of RoR/Ruby. I have no problem with keeping software up-to-date but I don't want to make that a main task because some "cool" kids easily get bored and keep phasing out stuff which break production apps and/or causes security issues.

If you "have no problem with keeping software up-to-date" then don't complain about these type of changes. As developers we either are responsible about version policies or we're not. Let's take Ruby 1.8.7 as an example:

If you were responsible you went through several patchlevels of Ruby 1.8.7, you're using the latest release (to fix security issues if nothing else) and you had five years to migrate to 1.9 (which most likely meant changing nothing in your code, just testing it).

If you were not responsible and you're running on something different to the latest patchlevel version then you're already running on faulty/unsecure software. Killing support upstream (again, after five years!) is not likely to change whatever you were [not] doing.

PS: Please don't refer to people like the ruby-core team as "cool kids who easily get bored". We all have our biases but name-calling doesn't add anything useful to discussions.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#26

That's exactly why I went with Django/Python instead of RoR/Ruby. I have no problem with keeping software up-to-date but I don't want to make that a main task because some "cool" kids easily get bored and keep phasing out stuff which break production apps and/or causes security issues.

Doesn't Django/Python have its own version headaches? (Python 3 came out 5 years ago, but Django didn't officially support until February of this year)

Phasing out old version of the underlying language isn't uncommon. For example, Oracle doesn't even support Java 6 anymore, which was released in 2007.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#27
post #8

My goodness, I have very little experience with Ruby and I'm currently in the process of trying to get a rails 3 app from github running on my osx system (1.8.7 default ruby version). I have spent the past several hours fighting with ruby versions and dependencies with the only glimmer of hope being successfully getting a hello world rails 4 app running. Seriously I thought ruby was supposed to be a beacon of simplic…

Does Rails 4 even supports Ruby 1.8.7?

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#28

That's exactly why I went with Django/Python instead of RoR/Ruby. I have no problem with keeping software up-to-date but I don't want to make that a main task because some "cool" kids easily get bored and keep phasing out stuff which break production apps and/or causes security issues.

If you "have no problem with keeping software up-to-date" then don't complain about these type of changes. As developers we either are responsible about version policies or we're not. Let's take Ruby 1.8.7 as an example: If you were responsible you went through several patchlevels of Ruby 1.8.7, you're using the latest release (to fix security issues if nothing else) and you had five years to migrate to 1.9 (which mo…

> and you had five years to migrate to 1.9

Given that you were at the project right from the start and allowed to spend time necessary. It's funny to hear people moan on the one hand about corporate that use Java EE or even Cobol but on the other hand refuse to accept that in order for their software to be usable, it needs to be stable in some senses.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#29
post #8

My goodness, I have very little experience with Ruby and I'm currently in the process of trying to get a rails 3 app from github running on my osx system (1.8.7 default ruby version). I have spent the past several hours fighting with ruby versions and dependencies with the only glimmer of hope being successfully getting a hello world rails 4 app running. Seriously I thought ruby was supposed to be a beacon of simplic…

Does Rails 4 even supports Ruby 1.8.7?

Ruby on Rails stopped supporting 1.8.x after Rails 3.2.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#30
Matz said a few days ago at the European Ruby Conference that the 1.8 -> 1.9 transition was a 'once in 20 years event' and that Ruby would not break backwards compatibility this way again until a theoretical 3.0 release which wouldn't come out for a very, very long time.
Post reply on HN