5 ms·
Ruby 1.8.7 retired
- JoshGlazebrook 13y agoSo is Apple finally going to update the version of ruby that comes already installed on osx?
- charliesome 13y agoMavericks ships with 2.0.0
- sergiotapia 13y agoNo more RVM! Fantastic news!
- dschuler 13y agoI like RVM - and I donated $5 to the maintainer. I guess it's better to not always need it, but it's saved me a lot of time.
- sergiotapia 13y agoI agree, RVM is a fantastic tool and a god send. Tremendous job by the creator. I just always felt that it was 'odd' to have to install N version of Ruby just to work on a particular project.
- regularfry 13y agoRVM is a very impressive collection of monstrous hacks jammed into a kitchen-sink tool to achieve a set of ends that can be better met in other ways. It's worth learning enough about how the Ruby environment fits together to figure out how. It's great to get learners off the ground (assuming it works first time), but if you're doing ruby seriously then I reckon part of your education should be how to get off it as soon as possible.
- charliesome 13y agoPlease don't let that tempt you to use system Ruby. You should always build your own, especially on a system like OS X. System Ruby is not there for you, it's there for the system to make use of (and yes, OS X does ship with quite a few Ruby scripts and a couple of Rails applications). Apple makes no guarantees of keeping this Ruby up to date.
- jrochkind1 13y agoWhat are the Rails applications OSX ships with? I have never heard of or noticed this before.
- evilduck 13y agoI don't know what "vanilla" OSX ships with, but I've seen references to Rails pop up in logs in Console.app for my OSX Server when I was screwing with replacing their Postgres db with my own.
- sjtgraham 13y agoPSA: Do not use system Ruby - http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/54109839209/psa-do-not-use-system-ruby http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/54109839209/psa-do-not-use...
- sergiotapia 13y agoI'll give this a read, thanks for sharing.
- alrs 13y agoCorrect. Don't use rvm or rbenv on your production Linux boxes. Use packaged Ruby there.
- enko 13y agoEr, why not? rvm was originally made for production use! I've used rvm in production for major sites for years with no problems whatsoever, in fact I believe it is best practise. Do you have any reasons for your preference for packaged ruby?
- regularfry 13y agoBest practice says production boxes shouldn't have compilers installed.
- judofyr 13y agoInstall compilers on one machine, build Ruby, package it up as a deb/rpm/whatever, distribute to other machines.
- regularfry 13y agoYep, that's the idea.
- enko 13y ago
- tbrock 13y agoYup 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 agoAre there people that do programming on macs not use tools like macports or homebrew?
- tbrock 13y agoYou 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 agoThere'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
- lylejohnson 13y agoI was about to ask the same thing about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (or CentOS).
- pvnick 13y agoMy 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.
- cleverjake 13y agoIf 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 agoReally waiting for Tokaido to be real-life-ready, it is extremely promising.
- nahname 13y agoYou 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
- IzzyMurad 13y agoThat'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 agoIf 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 agoWhen 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 agoMatz 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 agoThe 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 agoIsn'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 agoNope. 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 agoUbuntu/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 agoI 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.