3 ms·
Exactly. For language devs. It's always good to learn from mistakes from the past. PHP 6 failed, then PHP stayed with 5.x and moved directly from v5 to v7 - th
by frik 10y ago
Exactly.
For language devs. It's always good to learn from mistakes from the past. PHP 6 failed, then PHP stayed with 5.x and moved directly from v5 to v7 - that worked out fine.
The Python 2 to 3 is an important lesson as well. Ruby (afaik 1 to 2), dotNet 1 to 2 and 4 to dotNetCore 1, Swift 1 to 2 to 3, ... are several more cases that were rocky for developers.
- riffraff 10y agoAFAIR the messy release for ruby was 1.8 -> 1.9 (the new VM, changes to encodings, OS-level threading etc) but both that change and 1.9->2.0 worked out _much_ better than python 2->3. As I understand it, Matz considers the upgrade strategy until now quite successful, mostly because at the same time breaking changes occurred people got things they wanted (e.g. faster VM) which encouraged them to upgrade. Hence the "ruby 3 will be 3 times faster than ruby 2" idea, that's the carrot that should contrast people's will to not update.
- sjellis 10y agoI suspect that Ruby also benefited from having a comparatively young community. There are folks that used Ruby before Rails, but the majority of Rubyists only started in 2006 or later, so they are used to the faster replacement rate of modern Open Source and didn't have so many legacy codebases to worry about.