From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CD31396D0 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BEECA1FC072; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.phoenixmail.de (ash.phoenixmail.de [193.25.100.93]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDA21FC048 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ash.phoenixmail.de (Postfix, from userid 119) id 3430DCAC1614; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:32:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=phoenixmail.de; s=ash; t=1504557142; bh=PEtsD16f1zHgwd2Bl9pRa+DTUeBTWKmNwfmBMi3wOGk=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=KsdZpDojwXgBYPaVFY0iv24rXR4JVsfVo8t8z51M+D2Ri3GurgWCEUXLWRhe+mTVU rbtBQ0B1wlVZ1bo72fLkYuAdVaYOkTfO44MFDTuYDX8e4N33X7+Np4HOdC0BoEIK5v b0xa68Gepwt202y7l/DAJrmLQ6vs8f2LmHB8QwSdxQtFjFCf5RDulwMvH9pqjcLSBu lPy1s8pv5Cagecp9vLoB6KjVOS8zr8TyO3/ZKx7Z6gJWu6xkocoErXFL1hqGAuYAgp dyn1pYitUk/235On1Lob1PhqvnOUsDEZUHdKFiBLkrCJ/6c42uVBRcKO4waVT67ZtI fg8wv8cqQ/cvw== X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on ash.phoenixmail.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 Received: from localhost (p200300C1CBC6600092E26A9D81E2A04E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:c1:cbc6:6000:92e2:6a9d:81e2:a04e]) by ash.phoenixmail.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 516D3CAC15AC for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:32:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=phoenixmail.de; s=ash; t=1504557141; bh=PEtsD16f1zHgwd2Bl9pRa+DTUeBTWKmNwfmBMi3wOGk=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=nIlKwagsZkP/ijaH7Y/Wp1Pm2//nNrhtotyLUXJ7IaUszim9UF22DYB9aeryoXtW4 WSEIt9TwyXiysY8DyTlW0YPt/E1kGv0QKz6VTPmLAROiE0uI5zFstBkVSJOpUs0q3H y+EmhAY2ynekDus5d2ZCZyuqHZurGoF7gbM0kn9913ssGI61D+7l488Ars5SzdoQRd HJeqkyDg3qIxoAHO1BNuKHdk7G/E0xBQMNOrfqg8J1cnYPudOzMiHfwwVK5DM9mXh3 0P+MW6sBiywpJFM1luvthMSzFf9XdbvpmovV0lpy4/O0ZXAe0w5IyTJDS4x12S2G5L DZFtVQVyHwYWQ== Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 22:32:21 +0200 From: Marvin =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BClker?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Ruby - 3 versions - seriously???? Message-ID: <20170904203220.GA6939@hades.fritz.box> References: <7b8d7e5b-51d5-2bc2-e1be-e4c9e5510bda@wht.com.au> <9dfc7db0-cf95-e420-5f1d-c664ab547f2f@gmail.com> <20170902213730.GA13386@hades.fritz.box> <20170903103123.GB12087@hades.fritz.box> <20170904064923.GB4985@hades.fritz.box> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) X-Archives-Salt: 6b8ff363-adb9-40f3-97bd-d99b13982eef X-Archives-Hash: 884e18d61687ee353672d7ce3979073d Am 04. September 2017 um 12:07 Uhr -0500 schrieb R0b0t1 : > Even if they can not present an argument like I have, > they will probably only notice it if it misbehaves in some way. If it > misbehaves more than other software on their system, who is to say it > isn't a poorly designed language and/or ecosystem? I think that on a technical mailinglist you should convey your point using technical arguments, not rhethorical ones. The reasoning is errorneous. If your goal is not ultimate API stability, then Ruby's design approach that focuses more on progress than on ultimate API stability is not poor, but different. You can agree or disagree with the goal, but you can't question the measures taken to implement it by first stipulating a goal different from the one the measure was intended to implement. Take a look at Ruby's versioning policy[1]; ultimate API backward compatibility is not a design goal in minor versions of the language. Ruby is simply not the right tool for the job if you want to create for example an archive software that must run 20 years without touching it. Even though, the problem is not as dramatic as you seem to imply. I stand by my point that using private C interfaces is the programmer's fault and there is nothing to be standardised here. Real breaking changes of documented behaviour like the Bignum/Fixnum one are rare, and the effects are moderate. Most of the software written in Ruby will not have a problem with running on newer versions. Marvin [1]: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-policy-changes-with-2-1-0/