4 ms·

Hardly. I made the comment because it does not represent the same situation. Ruby 1.8.7 will no longer receive security patches, which is a big issue and is li

Hardly. I made the comment because it does not represent the same situation. Ruby 1.8.7 will no longer receive security patches, which is a big issue and is likely to motivate any half-decent organization to migrate. Python 2.7 and Perl 5.14 will continue to see use because both receive security patches, are still maintained, and in the Python case you also have to worry about (well, less so now) whether the libraries you need have moved to 3.x as well. I'm aware that the GP was trying to be witty, but it doesn't really stick.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Python 2.7 wasn't supposed to exist. Python 2.6 was supposed to be EOL for the 2.x series, including being the "help upgrade your code" release, but for many reasons, the line wasn't ready to die. The original poster is implying there will be a Ruby 1.8.8 to support the many who can't/won't upgrade to 1.9.
- Argorak 14y ago
  There won't be a 1.8.8, it was already discussed and shot down. 1.8.7 is already a transitional release. Also, given the adoption of 1.9 in the Ruby world, there is also no point.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Python 2.7 wasn't supposed to exist. Python 2.6 was supposed to be EOL for the 2.x series This claim is highly dubious, I never heard of it and just to be sure checked the log for PEP 361 "Python 2.6 release schedule". 2.7 has been mentioned since the first revision of the PEP, that the 2.6 release would be synchronized with 3.0 was added early on, I can not find any suggestion that 2.6 would be the 2.x EOL anywhere. It does specify that some features would be/were backported from 3.0 to 2.6 to help transition, but that's it. Do you have any source for your claim that 2.6 was supposed to be the 2.x EOL?