Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ruby 1.8.7 retired

ruby-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#31

Post by fbuilesv »

blablabla123 wrote: post #28
fbuilesv wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you joined a project is irrelevant. If you were hired two days ago and only found out about this now: tough luck, you have some work to do [0]. Even "stable", older platforms like Cobol have to deal with this (Micro Focus makes money off it with products like their Cobol set of tools (http://www.microfocus.com/mcro/cobol/index.aspx) [1]).

[0] Or maybe not. Your non-core [2] apps that run on 1.8.7 will still work tomorrow. Most of these applications are internal too so the risk is even less.

[1] There's almost always a 3rd party vendor who'll take advantage of a situations like this. They will make it your life easier and they'll charge you accordingly. See http://railslts.com/ for another example.

[2] If the applications that are putting the food on your table are running in an environment where no one thinks about this kind of stuff, then maybe it's time to take the wheel and start educating your team on why this is important.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#32

Post by VeejayRampay »

cleverjake wrote: post #9
pvnick wrote: 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…

If you are just trying to hack something together - don't worry. 1.8.7 has worked for a long time, and it will continue to do so for a while. But if you are actually trying to build something to use long term - as crappy as it is to hear it now, it is not a great idea to use the system version of ruby. since it is likely as you get into ruby that you will have multiple projects which amy or may not require different…

Really waiting for Tokaido to be real-life-ready, it is extremely promising.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#33

Post by jammi »

IzzyMurad wrote: post #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.

Yeah, there's nothing like the Python 2 to Python 3 transition going on there for the umteenth year.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#34

Post by VeejayRampay »

IzzyMurad wrote: post #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.

You went with Django/Python eh?

Which Python exactly? 2.6? 2.7? 3.3? That a Python user of all people would whine about lack of stability and consistency is extremely funny.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#35

Post by regularfry »

enko wrote: post #21
alrs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Best practice says production boxes shouldn't have compilers installed.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#36

Post by regularfry »

sergiotapia wrote: post #16
dschuler wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like RVM - and I donated $5 to the maintainer. I guess it's better to not always need it, but it's saved me a lot of time.

I agree, RVM is a fantastic tool and a god send. Tremendous job by the creator. I just always felt that it was 'odd' to have to install N version of Ruby just to work on a particular project.

RVM is a very impressive collection of monstrous hacks jammed into a kitchen-sink tool to achieve a set of ends that can be better met in other ways. It's worth learning enough about how the Ruby environment fits together to figure out how. It's great to get learners off the ground (assuming it works first time), but if you're doing ruby seriously then I reckon part of your education should be how to get off it as soon as possible.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#37

Post by __mp »

The whole ruby ecosystem is a nightmare for system administrators. Ubuntu/Debian still ships with ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.1p0 (which is evil I heard). In order to install a new ruby version one has to most likely compile it from scratch: - Since there are no deb packages and there is no sane way to build deb packages - Overriding system ruby has to be avoided since we manage the whole infrastructure with puppet (yes you can run it with 1.9x). Since we want to keep the ruby environment sane.

It get's really interesting once you use puppet to install an RVM ruby version. Which you then use to install $GENERIC_RUBY package (ie Gitlab) via Puppet.

I don't want to talk about the mess called "Puppet"...

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#38

Post by disbelief »

__mp wrote: post #37

The whole ruby ecosystem is a nightmare for system administrators. Ubuntu/Debian still ships with ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.1p0 (which is evil I heard). In order to install a new ruby version one has to most likely compile it from scratch: - Since there are no deb packages and there is no sane way to build deb packages - Overriding system ruby has to be avoided since we manage the whole infrastructure with puppet (yes you c…

Isn't it more Ubuntu/Debian's fault for shipping outdated versions of ruby than it is the ruby ecosystem's fault for simply having older versions?

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#39

Post by revskill »

IzzyMurad wrote: post #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.

I always have respect for people using Python to make a living. But it seems that you don't use the language as your main tool (maybe as a toy). Please, do respect all other's work even if you don't use (or hate) it.

Re: Ruby 1.8.7 retired

#40

Post by judofyr »

regularfry wrote: post #35
enko wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Best practice says production boxes shouldn't have compilers installed.

Install compilers on one machine, build Ruby, package it up as a deb/rpm/whatever, distribute to other machines.
Post reply on HN