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 D20E41396D0 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 23:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15F99E0D12; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 23:40:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B504AE0C7C for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 23:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c191so2351133ywb.0 for ; Mon, 04 Sep 2017 16:40:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cJiAfx/FczQaWYszRjy/ec+paq5niiRWaxE4DYTXJ6U=; b=U+Cskk8BJVP95g4AN9rey03uQZBL/MzXv15x3+Sl7SqEEW+X4TiH9WZfQ4lgBPiJSl Czu8tZk1WV8rJPPuqOGefxAjtr5Sm6MyHagSiK9NBm6mLY9Wu1/j0E8/h7XjwkSpQqcD 7FpLlqmws0YkyMZ20XLkdxNRBukPg1muegRa0RuzvHGowyWpGsOdYxSVoKT2I3OFybod YmOrQU/10pd7bF3RQyOicXLVaRgHxWgE3XsnEz7fPSvaAdbdUs351Vw56VmeOad3byKh 2K86MXCUXUERDBYmXwCjI/XcyLe8QNrXxYMlG68dGgExVT3nMLwiVFKRnMZJuBxZeM52 hmPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cJiAfx/FczQaWYszRjy/ec+paq5niiRWaxE4DYTXJ6U=; b=W3qQAlVKTgSS++EAqc+l3+XG8Lmhn1LeJTewOt9NYqz8L/mESeDpyhpA7WP6QhUs4y wZUsaVvvlFfG1rMqS65AViUNquw5Df3UlnvfoevmzDSWoSG5LKcdVTONStNyh/8sQ3V4 b7d5mvH5CeRrd0P0BT3LNVAKgqWc46VKkAx6Sw9TEjBCLFKqIWDEbzBzC2IeCjzCFeub szu9MDdnJ30aetxRVp5zJUwnQM9Sczyg5RPqHRpb0rGPPn0mLpSqfoZ4nVskihTeLaDm jRyF816Asx+VjLZgyo/t7tdOoAkcvbiQh9xZVdpgdVUjWnjegq1bv5Zs6XnQu0WXfJsO n3iw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgZ5fjBAq9Lp/GtUlfDj4qCDSbyOFdpEW/hNxx9CYaGkc8f3hmr JDCceYEBHQN/pmLgXol59JtD72Gh9Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb4bNDG8x4A3kKUb4Msqe30FdqMiMgtMN7U82gdsk3Ha3mbVw+bTwSPRuS3KRsTZJdztOj1nxgELZ1I7irPjuaw= X-Received: by 10.129.79.137 with SMTP id d131mr1763997ywb.218.1504568455229; Mon, 04 Sep 2017 16:40:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.129.211.10 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 16:40:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <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> <20170904203220.GA6939@hades.fritz.box> From: R0b0t1 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 18:40:54 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Ruby - 3 versions - seriously???? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 3974285e-1f0e-4687-b269-b923ea9f1f90 X-Archives-Hash: 1f38aa72e178d6b446fa6ea57e062e4f Sorry, I missed your reply. On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Marvin G=C3=BClker wrote: > 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 technical reasoning in the argument I presented is "it doesn't work when I try to use it." It is not sophistry. > 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. > The problem is there's a zeroth goal of every project: to be useful. If the software produced is hard to use or not usable at all, then all of the work spent on it is for naught. Suggesting that it is impossible to progress a language while maintaining language stability is fallacious reasoning. You can choose to do both, e.g. by structuring releases so that breaking changes are lumped together, as in Python. It is also the case that not all changes are good changes, though experimentation is key to success. > 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. > The problem is dramatic enough if there's people complaining about it. Granted, most distributions seem to take care of such issues for their users, so the only people complaining seem to be Gentooers. Other people who do not like the situation simply avoid Ruby. Cheers, R0b0t1.