[jruby-user] Roadmap for ruby 2.x compatability?

[Chris Evans]

Is there a roadmap / timeline for ruby 2.x compatibility?  I didn't see it on the main website.

I haven't seen any 2.x dependencies showing up, and I'm not sure how major the differences are.

Thanks,

Chris

[Robin McKay]

Does it matter?

...R

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[Justin Coyne]

While I don't care about this issue in particular.  I think it is very important for an open source project to communicate with it's user community.  It gives people confidence the maintainers have a plan and are still working on the project.  The users of a project like JRuby are themselves developers who need to plan their own projects and understanding the trajectory of the technologies they are building on is critical.

-Justin

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

2.0 support is available in an experimental state in 1.7.x. We
generally aren't working on it there, but we have fixed some small
bugs and missing features during 1.7 maintenance.

JRuby master, which will becoming JRuby 9000, supports *only*
2.1-compatibility. Most 2.0/2.1 features have been implemented, with a
few exceptions:

* Refinements
* Module#prepend
* JIT support for keyword arguments
* String#scrub

It is our intention to release 9k roughly Summer 2014 with full 2.1 support.

- Charlie

[Uwe Kubosch]

Thanks Charlie for the clarification!

We are fully prepared that plans change, but it is comforting to know the general intention.

I expect this will be picked up by Ruby Weekly :)

--
Uwe Kubosch
u...@kubosch.no
http://kubosch.no/

[Thomas E Enebo]

Although this has not been published on our lists of wikis we have been giving talks for over a year where we iterate over the plan and the status.  I guess it looks obvious in retrospect it could be put somewhere as well :)

-Tom

--
blog: http://blog.enebo.com       twitter: tom_enebo
mail: tom....@gmail.com

[John Joseph Bachir]

Great to hear.

Why, pray tell, is the next version called "9000" instead of, say, oh, I don't know, "2"? :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsDDXSmGJZA

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

We could think of no typical next-major-version number that wouldn't
lead to confusion with MRI version numbers. 1.8, 2.0 both would
"conflict" with MRI version numbers...and be even more confusing since
"JRuby 2.0 supports Ruby 2.1". Wat?

We considered pulling a Java and going from 1.7 to 8, but...meh.

The 9000 version number became a working title, and at present it
actually is the next major version of JRuby.

system ~/projects/jruby $ jruby -v
jruby 9000.dev (2.1.0.dev) 2014-02-21 b725465 on Java HotSpot(TM)
64-Bit Server VM 1.7.0_45-b18 [darwin-x86_64]

Of course, 9000 is a pretty cool number too. :-)

- Charlie

[Rohit Namjoshi]

> Of course, 9000 is a pretty cool number too. :-)

"The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

HAL

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Rohit Namjoshi
<rohit.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer
> has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any
> practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
> HAL

And of course JRuby 9000 will be perfect in every way :-D

- Charlie

[Robin McKay]

So it seems JRuby plans to remain subservient to MRI Ruby. Pity.

...R

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

Why do you say that? I believe we have done more to advance Ruby than any other implementation. We work with MRI because we wish to remain cooperative members of the Ruby community.

- Charlie (mobile)

[John Joseph Bachir]

Robin, what other path could JRuby take?

[Christian MICHON]

<< Ground control to Major Troll... Ground control to Major Troll... >>

Your past posts have been more than negative: I still recall your answer "if you insist on doing things the hard way" when on the list we were trying to help out a user on his bundler issues with jruby-complete. The purpose of this mailing list is to help users and share experience, not bash against the very same tool at the origin of this mailing list.

Quoting you again: "So it seems JRuby plans to remain subservient to MRI Ruby. Pity."

I'd say the exact opposite, and pity here to me becomes an offensive word.

Jruby has saved the day many times over at my day work, where MRI would not offer me (for example) the SQL drivers to connect to some of our internal databases. This is where Jruby leads.

<< Ground control to Major Troll... Now it’s time to leave the capsule if you dare...>>

--
Christian

[Robin McKay]

"Jruby has saved the day many times over at my day work, where MRI would
not
offer me (for example) the SQL drivers to connect to some of our
internal
databases. This is where Jruby leads."

This is exactly my point. I can't see why JRuby can't stand on its own
feet as a much better product than MRI Ruby.

And JRuby makes it easy to develop applications that run on any PC just
by copying the application files. MRI Ruby can't do that, and neither
can many other languages.

But from what I can see these unique strengths of JRuby are rarely
publicized. The emphasis always seems to be restricted to "is it
compatible with MRI Ruby xx.x?"

[Tim Uckun]

>But from what I can see these unique strengths of JRuby are rarely

publicized. The emphasis always seems to be restricted to "is it
compatible with MRI Ruby xx.x?"

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

It's called Jruby so of course it has to be compatible with ruby and people expect their ruby code to run un altered.   If you want to hype jruby on it's own merits you have to look at creating gems or frameworks which leverage all the jruby goodness. Torquebox  is a great example of this.   There are opportunities out there to fill in the gaps in the ruby ecosystem with jurby, for example SOAP libraries.  It might be cool to have a jruby specific framework too but frankly I don't know what that would look like.

If you want to eschew ruby look to Mirah I guess. 

[Keith Bennett]

Tom, Charlie -

Do you mean “only 2.1”, do you mean “not 2.0”, “not 1.9”, or both?  Ruby 2.x has been very slow to be adopted. In my informal surveys at user group meetings, I’ve found that < 10% of Ruby developers are using 2.x.  I haven’t looked very much into 2.x myself yet.  Is it totally backward compatible with 1.9?

When 1.8 was still in use in some places, I found JRuby a really convenient tool for checking 1.8 compatibility.  It would be handy to do the same with 1.9. But I do realize that focusing on a single version can simplify implementation, and that that’s really important.

Thanks for all your hard work, guys.

- Keith

> JRuby master, which will becoming JRuby 9000, supports *only*
> 2.1-compatibility.

---

Keith R. Bennett

http://about.me/keithrbennett

[Tobias Pfeiffer]

Hi there,

there are "Five notable incompatibilities" to 1.9.3 known of as of the
release of 2.0:
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/02/24/ruby-2-0-0-p0-is-released/
- and these are fairly minor (different default encoding for ruby
scripts being one of them). And "We have also taken care with the 2.0.0
design to make it compatible with 1.9. ".

E.g. 2.0 and also 2.1.0 are super compatible as far as I am aware of.
For my projects I run them with 1.9.3/2.0 and 2.1 without any issues.

2.x adds new features but in a backwards compatible way :)

Long story short, I love JRuby's approach to this and am eagerly
waiting for 9k :)
Thanks to the JRuby dev team for their amazing work.

Cheers,
Tobi

[Thomas E Enebo]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Keith Bennett <keithr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tom, Charlie -

Do you mean “only 2.1”, do you mean “not 2.0”, “not 1.9”, or both?  Ruby 2.x has been very slow to be adopted. In my informal surveys at user group meetings, I’ve found that < 10% of Ruby developers are using 2.x.  I haven’t looked very much into 2.x myself yet.  Is it totally backward compatible with 1.9?

We mean only 2.1 and no other version.  From people I have talked to the transition from 1.9.x to 2.x has been very smooth.  I think the lessons learned from MRI's 1.9.1 release has made this transition easier.  They have worried quite a bit about migration from one version of Ruby to the next.

We have been trying much harder to apply all 1.9+ fixes to both 1.7 branch and master.  I feel like maintaining these two branches for an extended period of time will not be very difficult.  We used to hate dual branch maintenance but the frequent merging has simplified the job a lot.  The only downside is training PR submitters to consider which branch to PR to.  Expect 1.7.x to last a long time if you cannot get off the 1.8/1.9 train.

Note that we will never support 2.0.x beyond experimental feature but the differences between 2.0 and 2.1 are really not large barring refinements.  Even then that is a new feature and not one which would hurt someone only wanting a 2.0 feature set.

 

When 1.8 was still in use in some places, I found JRuby a really convenient tool for checking 1.8 compatibility.  It would be handy to do the same with 1.9. But I do realize that focusing on a single version can simplify implementation, and that that’s really important.

As I said above you can do that with an install of both JRuby 1.7.x and JRuby 9000.  It won't be quite a convenient but it will still be available for those who need it (at least until most people do not use 1.8/1.9 and then we will consider when to EOL 1.7).

-Tom

[Thomas E Enebo]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Thomas E Enebo <tom....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Keith Bennett <keithr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tom, Charlie -

Do you mean “only 2.1”, do you mean “not 2.0”, “not 1.9”, or both?  Ruby 2.x has been very slow to be adopted. In my informal surveys at user group meetings, I’ve found that < 10% of Ruby developers are using 2.x.  I haven’t looked very much into 2.x myself yet.  Is it totally backward compatible with 1.9?

 

We have been trying much harder to apply all 1.9+ fixes to both 1.7 branch and master. 

Just want to make sure it is obvious that I mean 1.9+ fixes which still apply to 2.1 since master will only support 2.1 :)

[Keith Bennett]

Tom & Tobias -

Thanks for the clarifications.

Tom, I don't see having to use a different JRuby for early version testing as an obstacle; in fact, it might even be easier, since I use rvm, and an 'rvm jruby-1.7' is simpler than dealing with environment variables (export JRUBY_OPTS=--1.8, etc.). In any case, it's a minor use of JRuby and not that important.

Thanks,
- Keith