3 ms·

Why didn't people move with 1.9.1 ?

steveklabnik 16y ago
I can't speak for _everybody_, but I'm waiting to upgrade all of my sites that use Rails until Ruby 1.9.2 and Rails 3 both came out. I don't want to do two large updates, I'd rather do them together, and Rails 3 didn't support Ruby 1.9.1. Also, there's just general conservatism; Ruby 1.9 was originally Ruby 2.0, but got renamed to 1.9 for reasons I don't quite remember/understand. 1.8 -> 1.9 is a much larger transition than the scheme would imply, roughly equivalent to the Python 2.6 -> 3 change, and we've seen how well that's gone. As time progresses, more people switch over, and each new release makes people decide it's finally time to re-write their scripts.
- ichverstehe 16y ago
  I have been running 1.9.1 in production for months and used dozens of libraries. Most issues were easily fixed. The move isn't really that difficult.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    It's not difficult... but people still complain. I moved Shoes over to 1.9.1, I agree, it's not bad. Don't underestimate laziness.
catch23 16y ago
same reason lots of companies are still stuck in java 5 land...
- kjetil 16y ago
  Java 5? Heh. Try all the apps still on 1.3 and 1.4.
mileszs 16y ago
Ruby 1.9.1 was never considered stable by many Rubyists. (Find '1.9.1' in this Yehuda Katz interview: http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2010/06/preparing_for_r.html;jsessionid=PDKUHVLYW4VDTQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?print=true http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2010/06/preparing_for_r... ... which was just the first reference I found.) Mr. Katz advised in multiple interviews/tweets (if I recall correctly) to wait for 1.9.2, and the community tends to listen. Rails 3 was tested against 1.9.2, not 1.9.1; this provided yet another reason to wait.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Pretty much agree completely. To add a few more details, it wasn't until 1.9.1 was out that "normal" people really started to look at it. There were quite a few changes that took time to be properly absorbed by the community (e.g. Internationalisation, see James Edwards Gray's blog). Most gems also only started then to consider 1.9.1 as one of their targets, but it took some time. And anyway Rails was moving even more slowly. Personally I've been using 1.9.1 for about a year now, but I don't make a living out of Ruby (or Rails) so it's understandable that people who need more reliable support waited a bit.

I can't speak for _everybody_, but I'm waiting to upgrade all of my sites that use Rails until Ruby 1.9.2 and Rails 3 both came out. I don't want to do two large updates, I'd rather do them together, and Rails 3 didn't support Ruby 1.9.1. Also, there's just general conservatism; Ruby 1.9 was originally Ruby 2.0, but got renamed to 1.9 for reasons I don't quite remember/understand. 1.8 -> 1.9 is a much larger transition than the scheme would imply, roughly equivalent to the Python 2.6 -> 3 change, and we've seen how well that's gone. As time progresses, more people switch over, and each new release makes people decide it's finally time to re-write their scripts.

ichverstehe 16y ago
I have been running 1.9.1 in production for months and used dozens of libraries. Most issues were easily fixed. The move isn't really that difficult.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  It's not difficult... but people still complain. I moved Shoes over to 1.9.1, I agree, it's not bad. Don't underestimate laziness.

catch23 16y ago

same reason lots of companies are still stuck in java 5 land...

kjetil 16y ago
Java 5? Heh. Try all the apps still on 1.3 and 1.4.

mileszs 16y ago

Ruby 1.9.1 was never considered stable by many Rubyists. (Find '1.9.1' in this Yehuda Katz interview: http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2010/06/preparing_for_r.html;jsessionid=PDKUHVLYW4VDTQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?print=true http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2010/06/preparing_for_r... ... which was just the first reference I found.) Mr. Katz advised in multiple interviews/tweets (if I recall correctly) to wait for 1.9.2, and the community tends to listen. Rails 3 was tested against 1.9.2, not 1.9.1; this provided yet another reason to wait.

nanairo 16y ago
Pretty much agree completely. To add a few more details, it wasn't until 1.9.1 was out that "normal" people really started to look at it. There were quite a few changes that took time to be properly absorbed by the community (e.g. Internationalisation, see James Edwards Gray's blog). Most gems also only started then to consider 1.9.1 as one of their targets, but it took some time. And anyway Rails was moving even more slowly. Personally I've been using 1.9.1 for about a year now, but I don't make a living out of Ruby (or Rails) so it's understandable that people who need more reliable support waited a bit.