7 ms·

Ruby 1.8.7 retired

99 points by dicemoose 13y ago

pvnick 13y ago
My goodness, I have very little experience with Ruby and I'm currently in the process of trying to get a rails 3 app from github running on my osx system (1.8.7 default ruby version). I have spent the past several hours fighting with ruby versions and dependencies with the only glimmer of hope being successfully getting a hello world rails 4 app running. Seriously I thought ruby was supposed to be a beacon of simplicity? Someone please tell me there's a light at the end of this tunnel. Edit: Some folks have mentioned getting the RVM. I think I was unclear when I just said I've been fighting with ruby versions - I meant that all of this was done with RVM/gems/bundle/etc, but it's still been a p.i.t.a.
- nahname 13y ago
  You should install a ruby version manager. Most apps will specify the version in the project (.rvmrc or .ruby-version). If you have a ruby version manager and the required version installed, your system will switch automatically. Installing different versions of ruby is just a one liner. rvm instal ruby-1-9-3-p429 RVM setup guide: http://www.stewgleadow.com/blog/2011/12/10/installing-rvm-on-os-x-lion/ http://www.stewgleadow.com/blog/2011/12/10/installing-rvm-on... rbenv setup guide: https://gist.github.com/jasoncodes/1223731 https://gist.github.com/jasoncodes/1223731
- cleverjake 13y ago
  If you are just trying to hack something together - don't worry. 1.8.7 has worked for a long time, and it will continue to do so for a while. But if you are actually trying to build something to use long term - as crappy as it is to hear it now, it is not a great idea to use the system version of ruby. since it is likely as you get into ruby that you will have multiple projects which amy or may not require different subversions of ruby, you should always use rvm. it allows you to install multiple versions of ruby side by side. also, check out https://github.com/tokaido/tokaidoapp https://github.com/tokaido/tokaidoapp
  - VeejayRampay 13y ago
    Really waiting for Tokaido to be real-life-ready, it is extremely promising.
- phaedryx 13y ago
  A popular alternative to rvm is rbenv: https://github.com/sstephenson/rbenv https://github.com/sstephenson/rbenv
- vrdabomb5717 13y ago
  You might want to be careful: in OS X Mavericks, the default version of Ruby is 2.0.0p195. If you decide to upgrade, you'll have to go through this pain all over again. If you're using Homebrew, you can install rbenv, ruby-build, and then use rbenv install to install a new Ruby version. Homebrew has its own version of Ruby, but it's the latest version and it's more maintainable to use rbenv or RVM to manage Ruby installations. It's sort of a pain, but once everything's set up, you won't have to think about it again.
- znowi 13y ago
  If you want to play with Ruby and not Rails specifically, may I suggest a less monstrous framework, like Sinatra [1] or Ramaze [2]. Both come in one gem and have only one dependency - Rack (web server gateway). You do not need a version manager to give Ruby a try. Although, it's a nice thing to have. If you decide to use one, you basically have 3 options: 1. rvm (most popular and bloated), 2. rbenv (simple), 3. chruby (even simpler). If you can, I advise you to switch to Ruby 2.0. It's faster, got a lot of new features and it's becoming the default in the community. Last piece of advice, do not mix up Ruby and Rails :) [1] http://www.sinatrarb.com/ http://www.sinatrarb.com/ [2] http://ramaze.net/ http://ramaze.net/
- derengel 13y ago
  Does Rails 4 even supports Ruby 1.8.7?
  - eightyone 13y ago
    Ruby on Rails stopped supporting 1.8.x after Rails 3.2.
- wwweston 13y ago
  I've got a theory that this is one of the reasons that system configuration/deployment aids are so popular right now. My experience has been that there's trouble with this every time I spin up a new Ruby project (particularly Rails) and/or move to a new system. It does tend to get better as you get into individual projects, though.
- MattBearman 13y ago
  I found similar problems trying to get Rails running on OSX Lion. In the end I just went to using virtual machines running Ubuntu for development. I didn't bother with RVM, I just installed Ruby with apt-get and it was all really straight forward.
- KurtMueller 13y ago
  http://railsinstaller.org/ http://railsinstaller.org/ Made my life less of a headache when installing Ruby and Rails.
JoshGlazebrook 13y ago
So is Apple finally going to update the version of ruby that comes already installed on osx?
- charliesome 13y ago
  Mavericks ships with 2.0.0
  - tbrock 13y ago
    Yup it's a shame an operating system released as early as this year (mountain lion) came with 1.8.7 because it will be around for quite a while. We recently had to make the difficult decision to continue support of it in a new release because of CentOS, Mountain Lion etc... At least 2.0.0p195 is indeed in Mavericks.
    - ihuman 13y ago
      Are there people that do programming on macs not use tools like macports or homebrew?
      - tbrock 13y ago
        You are right, I'm pretty sure everyone who is a professional programmer uses homebrew, it's amazing. However, coding to 1.8.7 lets those who aren't hardcore rubyists currently enjoy a gem they may otherwise not be able to without having to deal with or even know about rvm or rbenv.
      - UNIXgod 13y ago
        There's gentoo/alt and fink which predates DarwinPorts. I'm sure there is even a pkgsrc user out there. I've occasionally used this one called make. It's sort of a meta language to homebeer. In fact it comes in two flavors pmake and gmake. =P
        X-Istence 13y ago
IzzyMurad 13y ago
That's exactly why I went with Django/Python instead of RoR/Ruby. I have no problem with keeping software up-to-date but I don't want to make that a main task because some "cool" kids easily get bored and keep phasing out stuff which break production apps and/or causes security issues.
- fbuilesv 13y ago
  If you "have no problem with keeping software up-to-date" then don't complain about these type of changes. As developers we either are responsible about version policies or we're not. Let's take Ruby 1.8.7 as an example: If you were responsible you went through several patchlevels of Ruby 1.8.7, you're using the latest release (to fix security issues if nothing else) and you had five years to migrate to 1.9 (which most likely meant changing nothing in your code, just testing it). If you were not responsible and you're running on something different to the latest patchlevel version then you're already running on faulty/unsecure software. Killing support upstream (again, after five years!) is not likely to change whatever you were [not] doing. PS: Please don't refer to people like the ruby-core team as "cool kids who easily get bored". We all have our biases but name-calling doesn't add anything useful to discussions.
  - blablabla123 13y ago
    > and you had five years to migrate to 1.9 Given that you were at the project right from the start and allowed to spend time necessary. It's funny to hear people moan on the one hand about corporate that use Java EE or even Cobol but on the other hand refuse to accept that in order for their software to be usable, it needs to be stable in some senses.
    - fbuilesv 13y ago
      When you joined a project is irrelevant. If you were hired two days ago and only found out about this now: tough luck, you have some work to do [0]. Even "stable", older platforms like Cobol have to deal with this (Micro Focus makes money off it with products like their Cobol set of tools (http://www.microfocus.com/mcro/cobol/index.aspx http://www.microfocus.com/mcro/cobol/index.aspx) [1]). [0] Or maybe not. Your non-core [2] apps that run on 1.8.7 will still work tomorrow. Most of these applications are internal too so the risk is even less. [1] There's almost always a 3rd party vendor who'll take advantage of a situations like this. They will make it your life easier and they'll charge you accordingly. See http://railslts.com/ http://railslts.com/ for another example. [2] If the applications that are putting the food on your table are running in an environment where no one thinks about this kind of stuff, then maybe it's time to take the wheel and start educating your team on why this is important.
steveklabnik 13y ago
Matz said a few days ago at the European Ruby Conference that the 1.8 -> 1.9 transition was a 'once in 20 years event' and that Ruby would not break backwards compatibility this way again until a theoretical 3.0 release which wouldn't come out for a very, very long time.
__mp 13y ago
The whole ruby ecosystem is a nightmare for system administrators. Ubuntu/Debian still ships with ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.1p0 (which is evil I heard). In order to install a new ruby version one has to most likely compile it from scratch: - Since there are no deb packages and there is no sane way to build deb packages - Overriding system ruby has to be avoided since we manage the whole infrastructure with puppet (yes you can run it with 1.9x). Since we want to keep the ruby environment sane. It get's really interesting once you use puppet to install an RVM ruby version. Which you then use to install $GENERIC_RUBY package (ie Gitlab) via Puppet. I don't want to talk about the mess called "Puppet"...
- disbelief 13y ago
  Isn't it more Ubuntu/Debian's fault for shipping outdated versions of ruby than it is the ruby ecosystem's fault for simply having older versions?
  - regularfry 13y ago
    Nope. Ubuntu and Debian are not at fault. They have to pick a version of Ruby which runs the user applications that Ubuntu and Debian package, which will be kept working throughout the support period of the OS release. Everything else is secondary. They don't get to upgrade versions half-way through the release cycle, either. This is why it's not realistic to expect to use the system ruby for development: that's not what it's there for. It's also worth noting that the version of Ruby in current Debian Stable (which is 1.9.3-p194) will in all likelihood be deprecated by ruby-core 2 years before the next Debian Stable release. Again, this is fine for Debian, because they have taken on the responsibility of keeping working the user applications which rely on the system ruby. If you're complaining about the system ruby being so out of date that you can't develop applications on it, you're doing it wrong. The system ruby isn't for you.
- judofyr 13y ago
  Ubuntu/Debian does not ship with Ruby 1.9.1. They ship with Ruby 1.9.3 under the name of "ruby-1.9.1" because they are ABI compatible.
mhartl 13y ago
I love how he apologizes for his "limited" English and then drops a line like "[Ruby] 1.8.7 was the last scion of that clan." If that's "limited", then we're all in trouble.

99 points by dicemoose 13y ago

My goodness, I have very little experience with Ruby and I'm currently in the process of trying to get a rails 3 app from github running on my osx system (1.8.7 default ruby version). I have spent the past several hours fighting with ruby versions and dependencies with the only glimmer of hope being successfully getting a hello world rails 4 app running. Seriously I thought ruby was supposed to be a beacon of simplicity? Someone please tell me there's a light at the end of this tunnel. Edit: Some folks have mentioned getting the RVM. I think I was unclear when I just said I've been fighting with ruby versions - I meant that all of this was done with RVM/gems/bundle/etc, but it's still been a p.i.t.a.

nahname 13y ago
You should install a ruby version manager. Most apps will specify the version in the project (.rvmrc or .ruby-version). If you have a ruby version manager and the required version installed, your system will switch automatically. Installing different versions of ruby is just a one liner. rvm instal ruby-1-9-3-p429 RVM setup guide: http://www.stewgleadow.com/blog/2011/12/10/installing-rvm-on-os-x-lion/ http://www.stewgleadow.com/blog/2011/12/10/installing-rvm-on... rbenv setup guide: https://gist.github.com/jasoncodes/1223731 https://gist.github.com/jasoncodes/1223731
cleverjake 13y ago
If you are just trying to hack something together - don't worry. 1.8.7 has worked for a long time, and it will continue to do so for a while. But if you are actually trying to build something to use long term - as crappy as it is to hear it now, it is not a great idea to use the system version of ruby. since it is likely as you get into ruby that you will have multiple projects which amy or may not require different subversions of ruby, you should always use rvm. it allows you to install multiple versions of ruby side by side. also, check out https://github.com/tokaido/tokaidoapp https://github.com/tokaido/tokaidoapp
- VeejayRampay 13y ago
  Really waiting for Tokaido to be real-life-ready, it is extremely promising.
phaedryx 13y ago
A popular alternative to rvm is rbenv: https://github.com/sstephenson/rbenv https://github.com/sstephenson/rbenv
vrdabomb5717 13y ago
You might want to be careful: in OS X Mavericks, the default version of Ruby is 2.0.0p195. If you decide to upgrade, you'll have to go through this pain all over again. If you're using Homebrew, you can install rbenv, ruby-build, and then use rbenv install to install a new Ruby version. Homebrew has its own version of Ruby, but it's the latest version and it's more maintainable to use rbenv or RVM to manage Ruby installations. It's sort of a pain, but once everything's set up, you won't have to think about it again.
znowi 13y ago
If you want to play with Ruby and not Rails specifically, may I suggest a less monstrous framework, like Sinatra [1] or Ramaze [2]. Both come in one gem and have only one dependency - Rack (web server gateway). You do not need a version manager to give Ruby a try. Although, it's a nice thing to have. If you decide to use one, you basically have 3 options: 1. rvm (most popular and bloated), 2. rbenv (simple), 3. chruby (even simpler). If you can, I advise you to switch to Ruby 2.0. It's faster, got a lot of new features and it's becoming the default in the community. Last piece of advice, do not mix up Ruby and Rails :) [1] http://www.sinatrarb.com/ http://www.sinatrarb.com/ [2] http://ramaze.net/ http://ramaze.net/
derengel 13y ago
Does Rails 4 even supports Ruby 1.8.7?
- eightyone 13y ago
  Ruby on Rails stopped supporting 1.8.x after Rails 3.2.
wwweston 13y ago
I've got a theory that this is one of the reasons that system configuration/deployment aids are so popular right now. My experience has been that there's trouble with this every time I spin up a new Ruby project (particularly Rails) and/or move to a new system. It does tend to get better as you get into individual projects, though.
MattBearman 13y ago
I found similar problems trying to get Rails running on OSX Lion. In the end I just went to using virtual machines running Ubuntu for development. I didn't bother with RVM, I just installed Ruby with apt-get and it was all really straight forward.
KurtMueller 13y ago
http://railsinstaller.org/ http://railsinstaller.org/ Made my life less of a headache when installing Ruby and Rails.

JoshGlazebrook 13y ago

So is Apple finally going to update the version of ruby that comes already installed on osx?

charliesome 13y ago
Mavericks ships with 2.0.0
- tbrock 13y ago
  Yup it's a shame an operating system released as early as this year (mountain lion) came with 1.8.7 because it will be around for quite a while. We recently had to make the difficult decision to continue support of it in a new release because of CentOS, Mountain Lion etc... At least 2.0.0p195 is indeed in Mavericks.
  - ihuman 13y ago
    Are there people that do programming on macs not use tools like macports or homebrew?
    - tbrock 13y ago
      You are right, I'm pretty sure everyone who is a professional programmer uses homebrew, it's amazing. However, coding to 1.8.7 lets those who aren't hardcore rubyists currently enjoy a gem they may otherwise not be able to without having to deal with or even know about rvm or rbenv.
    - UNIXgod 13y ago
      There's gentoo/alt and fink which predates DarwinPorts. I'm sure there is even a pkgsrc user out there. I've occasionally used this one called make. It's sort of a meta language to homebeer. In fact it comes in two flavors pmake and gmake. =P
      - X-Istence 13y ago

IzzyMurad 13y ago

That's exactly why I went with Django/Python instead of RoR/Ruby. I have no problem with keeping software up-to-date but I don't want to make that a main task because some "cool" kids easily get bored and keep phasing out stuff which break production apps and/or causes security issues.

fbuilesv 13y ago
If you "have no problem with keeping software up-to-date" then don't complain about these type of changes. As developers we either are responsible about version policies or we're not. Let's take Ruby 1.8.7 as an example: If you were responsible you went through several patchlevels of Ruby 1.8.7, you're using the latest release (to fix security issues if nothing else) and you had five years to migrate to 1.9 (which most likely meant changing nothing in your code, just testing it). If you were not responsible and you're running on something different to the latest patchlevel version then you're already running on faulty/unsecure software. Killing support upstream (again, after five years!) is not likely to change whatever you were [not] doing. PS: Please don't refer to people like the ruby-core team as "cool kids who easily get bored". We all have our biases but name-calling doesn't add anything useful to discussions.
- blablabla123 13y ago
  > and you had five years to migrate to 1.9 Given that you were at the project right from the start and allowed to spend time necessary. It's funny to hear people moan on the one hand about corporate that use Java EE or even Cobol but on the other hand refuse to accept that in order for their software to be usable, it needs to be stable in some senses.
  - fbuilesv 13y ago
    When you joined a project is irrelevant. If you were hired two days ago and only found out about this now: tough luck, you have some work to do [0]. Even "stable", older platforms like Cobol have to deal with this (Micro Focus makes money off it with products like their Cobol set of tools (http://www.microfocus.com/mcro/cobol/index.aspx http://www.microfocus.com/mcro/cobol/index.aspx) [1]). [0] Or maybe not. Your non-core [2] apps that run on 1.8.7 will still work tomorrow. Most of these applications are internal too so the risk is even less. [1] There's almost always a 3rd party vendor who'll take advantage of a situations like this. They will make it your life easier and they'll charge you accordingly. See http://railslts.com/ http://railslts.com/ for another example. [2] If the applications that are putting the food on your table are running in an environment where no one thinks about this kind of stuff, then maybe it's time to take the wheel and start educating your team on why this is important.

steveklabnik 13y ago

Matz said a few days ago at the European Ruby Conference that the 1.8 -> 1.9 transition was a 'once in 20 years event' and that Ruby would not break backwards compatibility this way again until a theoretical 3.0 release which wouldn't come out for a very, very long time.

__mp 13y ago

The whole ruby ecosystem is a nightmare for system administrators. Ubuntu/Debian still ships with ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.1p0 (which is evil I heard). In order to install a new ruby version one has to most likely compile it from scratch: - Since there are no deb packages and there is no sane way to build deb packages - Overriding system ruby has to be avoided since we manage the whole infrastructure with puppet (yes you can run it with 1.9x). Since we want to keep the ruby environment sane. It get's really interesting once you use puppet to install an RVM ruby version. Which you then use to install $GENERIC_RUBY package (ie Gitlab) via Puppet. I don't want to talk about the mess called "Puppet"...

disbelief 13y ago
Isn't it more Ubuntu/Debian's fault for shipping outdated versions of ruby than it is the ruby ecosystem's fault for simply having older versions?
- regularfry 13y ago
  Nope. Ubuntu and Debian are not at fault. They have to pick a version of Ruby which runs the user applications that Ubuntu and Debian package, which will be kept working throughout the support period of the OS release. Everything else is secondary. They don't get to upgrade versions half-way through the release cycle, either. This is why it's not realistic to expect to use the system ruby for development: that's not what it's there for. It's also worth noting that the version of Ruby in current Debian Stable (which is 1.9.3-p194) will in all likelihood be deprecated by ruby-core 2 years before the next Debian Stable release. Again, this is fine for Debian, because they have taken on the responsibility of keeping working the user applications which rely on the system ruby. If you're complaining about the system ruby being so out of date that you can't develop applications on it, you're doing it wrong. The system ruby isn't for you.
judofyr 13y ago
Ubuntu/Debian does not ship with Ruby 1.9.1. They ship with Ruby 1.9.3 under the name of "ruby-1.9.1" because they are ABI compatible.

mhartl 13y ago

I love how he apologizes for his "limited" English and then drops a line like "[Ruby] 1.8.7 was the last scion of that clan." If that's "limited", then we're all in trouble.