f



Ruby 1.8 vs. Ruby 1.9

Hi,

Does anyone here think it's a good idea for a beginner to learn Ruby
1.8 and then learn Ruby 1.9? If it's better to just learn 1.9 and not
worry about what 1.8 was like, I would appreciate any and all
responses to this post.

Thanks for your time,

Calvin Stephens
0
cstephens4 (11)
5/20/2009 3:35:09 PM
comp.lang.ruby 48886 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

16 Replies
741 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 8

On May 20, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Calvin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Does anyone here think it's a good idea for a beginner to learn Ruby
> 1.8 and then learn Ruby 1.9? If it's better to just learn 1.9 and not
> worry about what 1.8 was like, I would appreciate any and all
> responses to this post.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Calvin Stephens
>
IMHO, if you are just starting, then start with 1.9. That is the  
direction of ruby.

Cheers--

Charles
---
Charles Johnson
Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education
Vanderbilt University



0
5/20/2009 3:42:30 PM
I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so
many lib .
and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy
for him.

ps: sorry for my poor English.
0
hoooopo (3)
5/20/2009 3:44:33 PM
[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

I was wondering the exact same thing!

Before I knew 1.9 was coming out I got a 1.8 book, and I have gone through
it. However, I am wondering if I should get a 1.9 book now and learn it.

I have not started any major projects using Ruby just yet, and am curious if
I should practice with 1.8 some before I learn 1.9 or just jump into 1.9 and
start using it for projects?

My only concern is the lack of Gem support 1.9 might have right now. Is it
something a new comer should worry with? Or, should I just forget the lack
of Gem support and know that Gem's will eventually update to 1.9 and new
Gems will be made for 1.9.

Anyhow, I know that I will want to learn 1.9 at some point. I just do not
want to jump in and be a bad position to progress in my learning because of
1.9 set backs because it is so new.

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hooopo <hoooopo@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so
> many lib .
> and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy
> for him.
>
> ps: sorry for my poor English.
>
>

0
kidguko (15)
5/20/2009 3:51:32 PM
If you're looking for a good book that covers both 1.8 and 1.9, I
highly recommend O'Reilly's "The Ruby Programming Language". It's the
most comprehensive and concise reference that I've found, and it
bridges the gap between 1.8 and 1.9 nicely, explaining the differences
between the two as you go.

Michael

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joshua Collins <kidguko@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering the exact same thing!
>
> Before I knew 1.9 was coming out I got a 1.8 book, and I have gone through
> it. However, I am wondering if I should get a 1.9 book now and learn it.
>
> I have not started any major projects using Ruby just yet, and am curious if
> I should practice with 1.8 some before I learn 1.9 or just jump into 1.9 and
> start using it for projects?
>
> My only concern is the lack of Gem support 1.9 might have right now. Is it
> something a new comer should worry with? Or, should I just forget the lack
> of Gem support and know that Gem's will eventually update to 1.9 and new
> Gems will be made for 1.9.
>
> Anyhow, I know that I will want to learn 1.9 at some point. I just do not
> want to jump in and be a bad position to progress in my learning because of
> 1.9 set backs because it is so new.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hooopo <hoooopo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so
>> many lib .
>> and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy
>> for him.
>>
>> ps: sorry for my poor English.
>>
>>
>

0
mjijackson (12)
5/20/2009 5:13:24 PM
[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

What about 'Programming Ruby 1.9: The Pragmatic Programmers' Guide' ?

I know they have a 1.8 version of the book as well, but does the 1.9 version
of the book go over 1.8 and 1.9 both?

I also saw a book promoted here on the list called, 'The Well-Grounded
Rubyist'. It mainly covers 1.9 as well.

Have any of you read these two as well?

I will take a look at that O'Reilly's book ... I have not seen that one yet.

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Michael J. I. Jackson <mjijackson@gmail.com
> wrote:

> If you're looking for a good book that covers both 1.8 and 1.9, I
> highly recommend O'Reilly's "The Ruby Programming Language". It's the
> most comprehensive and concise reference that I've found, and it
> bridges the gap between 1.8 and 1.9 nicely, explaining the differences
> between the two as you go.
>
> Michael
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joshua Collins <kidguko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was wondering the exact same thing!
> >
> > Before I knew 1.9 was coming out I got a 1.8 book, and I have gone
> through
> > it. However, I am wondering if I should get a 1.9 book now and learn it.
> >
> > I have not started any major projects using Ruby just yet, and am curious
> if
> > I should practice with 1.8 some before I learn 1.9 or just jump into 1.9
> and
> > start using it for projects?
> >
> > My only concern is the lack of Gem support 1.9 might have right now. Is
> it
> > something a new comer should worry with? Or, should I just forget the
> lack
> > of Gem support and know that Gem's will eventually update to 1.9 and new
> > Gems will be made for 1.9.
> >
> > Anyhow, I know that I will want to learn 1.9 at some point. I just do not
> > want to jump in and be a bad position to progress in my learning because
> of
> > 1.9 set backs because it is so new.
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hooopo <hoooopo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so
> >> many lib .
> >> and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy
> >> for him.
> >>
> >> ps: sorry for my poor English.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

0
kidguko (15)
5/20/2009 5:21:51 PM
[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

2009/5/21 Joshua Collins <kidguko@gmail.com>

> What about 'Programming Ruby 1.9: The Pragmatic Programmers' Guide' ?
>
> I know they have a 1.8 version of the book as well, but does the 1.9
> version
> of the book go over 1.8 and 1.9 both?
>
> I also saw a book promoted here on the list called, 'The Well-Grounded
> Rubyist'. It mainly covers 1.9 as well.
>
> Have any of you read these two as well?
>
> I will take a look at that O'Reilly's book ... I have not seen that one
> yet.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Michael J. I. Jackson <
> mjijackson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > If you're looking for a good book that covers both 1.8 and 1.9, I
> > highly recommend O'Reilly's "The Ruby Programming Language". It's the
> > most comprehensive and concise reference that I've found, and it
> > bridges the gap between 1.8 and 1.9 nicely, explaining the differences
> > between the two as you go.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joshua Collins <kidguko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I was wondering the exact same thing!
> > >
> > > Before I knew 1.9 was coming out I got a 1.8 book, and I have gone
> > through
> > > it. However, I am wondering if I should get a 1.9 book now and learn
> it.
> > >
> > > I have not started any major projects using Ruby just yet, and am
> curious
> > if
> > > I should practice with 1.8 some before I learn 1.9 or just jump into
> 1.9
> > and
> > > start using it for projects?
> > >
> > > My only concern is the lack of Gem support 1.9 might have right now. Is
> > it
> > > something a new comer should worry with? Or, should I just forget the
> > lack
> > > of Gem support and know that Gem's will eventually update to 1.9 and
> new
> > > Gems will be made for 1.9.
> > >
> > > Anyhow, I know that I will want to learn 1.9 at some point. I just do
> not
> > > want to jump in and be a bad position to progress in my learning
> because
> > of
> > > 1.9 set backs because it is so new.
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hooopo <hoooopo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so
> > >> many lib .
> > >> and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy
> > >> for him.
> > >>
> > >> ps: sorry for my poor English.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
I don't want to buy any books but I want to learn Ruby 1.9 as well.


-- 
Tidak ada yang lebih baik dari kembali ke asal
Nothing can be better than back to the roots

0
vecciora (5)
5/20/2009 10:45:00 PM
Joshua Collins wrote:
> What about 'Programming Ruby 1.9: The Pragmatic Programmers' Guide' ?
>
> I know they have a 1.8 version of the book as well, but does the 1.9 version
> of the book go over 1.8 and 1.9 both?
>
> I also saw a book promoted here on the list called, 'The Well-Grounded
> Rubyist'. It mainly covers 1.9 as well.
>
> Have any of you read these two as well?
>
> I will take a look at that O'Reilly's book ... I have not seen that one yet.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Michael J. I. Jackson <mjijackson@gmail.com
>   
>> wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>> If you're looking for a good book that covers both 1.8 and 1.9, I
>> highly recommend O'Reilly's "The Ruby Programming Language". It's the
>> most comprehensive and concise reference that I've found, and it
>> bridges the gap between 1.8 and 1.9 nicely, explaining the differences
>> between the two as you go.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joshua Collins <kidguko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I was wondering the exact same thing!
>>>
>>> Before I knew 1.9 was coming out I got a 1.8 book, and I have gone
>>>       
>> through
>>     
>>> it. However, I am wondering if I should get a 1.9 book now and learn it.
>>>
>>> I have not started any major projects using Ruby just yet, and am curious
>>>       
>> if
>>     
>>> I should practice with 1.8 some before I learn 1.9 or just jump into 1.9
>>>       
>> and
>>     
>>> start using it for projects?
>>>
>>> My only concern is the lack of Gem support 1.9 might have right now. Is
>>>       
>> it
>>     
>>> something a new comer should worry with? Or, should I just forget the
>>>       
>> lack
>>     
>>> of Gem support and know that Gem's will eventually update to 1.9 and new
>>> Gems will be made for 1.9.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, I know that I will want to learn 1.9 at some point. I just do not
>>> want to jump in and be a bad position to progress in my learning because
>>>       
>> of
>>     
>>> 1.9 set backs because it is so new.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hooopo <hoooopo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so
>>>> many lib .
>>>> and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy
>>>> for him.
>>>>
>>>> ps: sorry for my poor English.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>     
>
>   
Another perspective on this: I'm developing a major personal project 
(into my 4th month on it), and have been unable to use 1.9 due to key 
gems still not working in 1.9. However, due to moderate level of Ruby 
knowledge, I must rather often consult a reference. The one I have is 
Thomas' 3rd edition of "Programming Ruby". It focuses on 1.9, but seems 
to distinctly point out where 1.9 is different from 1.8.x.

What I want to emphasize is two things:

1. depending upon the gems you need, 1.9 may or may not be usable by 
you. For me, it's not yet.
2. my principal reference, nevertheless, is a book devoted to 1.9. I 
have yet to get in trouble using this book. Most of the time I don't 
worry at all about version differences, and my code just works (well, 
usually...er...eventually).

So, get a good, up-to-date reference book, and there are several I'd 
personally be happy with, and just start coding. As has been said before 
on this list, many times, the differences between 1.8 and 1.9 are 
meaningful but not earthshaking, at least not to me.

t.

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website) 
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


0
tomcloyd1 (337)
5/20/2009 10:45:37 PM
[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Thanks Tom, that makes a lot of sense! :-)


On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloyd@comcast.net> wrote:

> Joshua Collins wrote:
>
>> What about 'Programming Ruby 1.9: The Pragmatic Programmers' Guide' ?
>>
>> I know they have a 1.8 version of the book as well, but does the 1.9
>> version
>> of the book go over 1.8 and 1.9 both?
>>
>> I also saw a book promoted here on the list called, 'The Well-Grounded
>> Rubyist'. It mainly covers 1.9 as well.
>>
>> Have any of you read these two as well?
>>
>> I will take a look at that O'Reilly's book ... I have not seen that one
>> yet.
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Michael J. I. Jackson <
>> mjijackson@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you're looking for a good book that covers both 1.8 and 1.9, I
>>> highly recommend O'Reilly's "The Ruby Programming Language". It's the
>>> most comprehensive and concise reference that I've found, and it
>>> bridges the gap between 1.8 and 1.9 nicely, explaining the differences
>>> between the two as you go.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joshua Collins <kidguko@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was wondering the exact same thing!
>>>>
>>>> Before I knew 1.9 was coming out I got a 1.8 book, and I have gone
>>>>
>>>>
>>> through
>>>
>>>
>>>> it. However, I am wondering if I should get a 1.9 book now and learn it.
>>>>
>>>> I have not started any major projects using Ruby just yet, and am
>>>> curious
>>>>
>>>>
>>> if
>>>
>>>
>>>> I should practice with 1.8 some before I learn 1.9 or just jump into 1.9
>>>>
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> start using it for projects?
>>>>
>>>> My only concern is the lack of Gem support 1.9 might have right now. Is
>>>>
>>>>
>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> something a new comer should worry with? Or, should I just forget the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> lack
>>>
>>>
>>>> of Gem support and know that Gem's will eventually update to 1.9 and new
>>>> Gems will be made for 1.9.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, I know that I will want to learn 1.9 at some point. I just do
>>>> not
>>>> want to jump in and be a bad position to progress in my learning because
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1.9 set backs because it is so new.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Hooopo <hoooopo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think ,as a beginnner, to learn Ruby 1.8 is a good way,there are so
>>>>> many lib .
>>>>> and also, if he has learned 1.8 ,then to learn Ruby 1.9 will be easy
>>>>> for him.
>>>>>
>>>>> ps: sorry for my poor English.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> Another perspective on this: I'm developing a major personal project (into
> my 4th month on it), and have been unable to use 1.9 due to key gems still
> not working in 1.9. However, due to moderate level of Ruby knowledge, I must
> rather often consult a reference. The one I have is Thomas' 3rd edition of
> "Programming Ruby". It focuses on 1.9, but seems to distinctly point out
> where 1.9 is different from 1.8.x.
>
> What I want to emphasize is two things:
>
> 1. depending upon the gems you need, 1.9 may or may not be usable by you.
> For me, it's not yet.
> 2. my principal reference, nevertheless, is a book devoted to 1.9. I have
> yet to get in trouble using this book. Most of the time I don't worry at all
> about version differences, and my code just works (well,
> usually...er...eventually).
>
> So, get a good, up-to-date reference book, and there are several I'd
> personally be happy with, and just start coding. As has been said before on
> this list, many times, the differences between 1.8 and 1.9 are meaningful
> but not earthshaking, at least not to me.
>
> t.
>
> --
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
> Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
> << tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
> << TomCloyd.com >> (website) << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental
> health weblog)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>

0
kidguko (15)
5/20/2009 10:52:46 PM
Just remember that there are really three distinct Ruby versions now: 
1.8.6, 1.8.7 (which has a number of 1.9 features, but not all), and 
1.9.x
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

0
b.candler (2627)
5/21/2009 7:55:28 PM
Brian Candler wrote:
> Just remember that there are really three distinct Ruby versions now: 
> 1.8.6, 1.8.7 (which has a number of 1.9 features, but not all), and 
> 1.9.x
>   
Absolutely, and that's probably why my simultaneous use of 1.8.7 AND the 
1.9 version of the Pickax goes so smoothly. Makes sense, huh...

t.

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website) 
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


0
tomcloyd1 (337)
5/22/2009 1:33:32 AM
"Tom Cloyd" <tomcloyd@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:4A14880B.3000204@comcast.net...
> Joshua Collins wrote:
>
> Another perspective on this: I'm developing a major personal project
> (into my 4th month on it), and have been unable to use 1.9 due to key
> gems still not working in 1.9. However, due to moderate level of Ruby
> knowledge, I must rather often consult a reference. The one I have is
> Thomas' 3rd edition of "Programming Ruby". It focuses on 1.9, but seems
> to distinctly point out where 1.9 is different from 1.8.x.
>
> What I want to emphasize is two things:
>
> 1. depending upon the gems you need, 1.9 may or may not be usable by
> you. For me, it's not yet.

    How can you tell which libraries are supported or not?  Is there a 
simple repository of which gems have been converted?
    I'm still using Ruby 1.8 'cause I've been programming in it for a number 
of personal projects and, of course, those projects use a great number of 
libraries.  I'm just itching to upgrade to Ruby 1.9 except that I still need 
those libraries.  The instant that happens, I'm going for it!  Is there a 
simple way to determine this besides looking up the documentation of each 
library hoping that the maintainer mentions it?
    Thank you... 


0
ihatespam550 (144)
5/27/2009 7:00:54 PM
Q: "How can you tell which libraries are supported or not?  Is there a=20
simple repository of which gems have been converted?"


A: This may be helpful http://isitruby19.com/



0
5/27/2009 7:44:27 PM
Andrew Barringer wrote:
> Q: "How can you tell which libraries are supported or not?  Is there a 
> simple repository of which gems have been converted?"
>
>
> A: This may be helpful http://isitruby19.com/
>
>
>
>
>   
And that's also about all there is, sadly.

Clearly, some gems work in 1.9 unless you use certain parts of their 
functionality, and then they fail.

There be water dragons in that murk!

t.

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website) 
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


0
tomcloyd1 (337)
5/28/2009 7:28:01 AM
Hi,

Calvin wrote:
> Does anyone here think it's a good idea for a beginner to learn Ruby
> 1.8 and then learn Ruby 1.9? If it's better to just learn 1.9 and not
> worry about what 1.8 was like, I would appreciate any and all
> responses to this post.

Here is my personal experience: I started to code my first line of ruby 
nearly one week ago, I just used what was available on my Debian Lenny, 
at that's 1.8.7 .

I'm parsing text-based script files which are a few MB and I have to 
by-character inspect them, I'm not using regex (yet; it's a straight 
C-port for now). Since I've heard about 1.9 and saw that 1.9.1 is touted 
as stable on ruby-lang I compiled the latest version and wanted to give 
it a try, maybe there's some speed up (current parsing on large file 
takes > 15 seconds).

Unfortunately I was not able to test my application: I'm using 
CommandLine [1] and using 1.9.1 it just silently exits.

That is: no exception, no warning, nothing. I discovered the -W switch 
and was shown a message:

commandline/optionparser/optionparser.rb:341: warning: shadowing outer 
local variable - e

but changing the variable name didn't fix it.

I tried to get into it with the debugger, but I could not find anything 
as I'm not that into ruby yet.

For me, I'm not considered 1.9.1 for now. It's too hard to work with 
libraries I still don't know well when I just try to learn the language 
and try to get my small project going on.

If I would not depend on other libs, I would surely jump on the wagon, 
but that's not possible for me (and especially as a *beginner* you are 
just not capable of writing everything yourself, lacking the skills).

- Markus

[1] http://rubyforge.org/docman/view.php/632/233/posted-docs.index.html
0
markus8698 (53)
5/28/2009 8:26:09 AM
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Markus Fischer <markus@fischer.name> wrote:

> Unfortunately I was not able to test my application: I'm using CommandLine
> [1] and using 1.9.1 it just silently exits.
>
> That is: no exception, no warning, nothing. I discovered the -W switch and
> was shown a message:
>
> commandline/optionparser/optionparser.rb:341: warning: shadowing outer local
> variable - e

Did you report this error to Jim and also file it on isitruby19.com ?

If not, please do.  Libraries won't get better unless users let us
know the problems they're having.
If you did, thanks!   Try back every few months and I think you'll see
the library scene improve.
As your Ruby skills increase, definitely consider patching your
favorite libraries, it's often easier than you'd expect.

-greg

0
5/28/2009 2:33:52 PM
Hi,

Gregory Brown wrote:
> Did you report this error to Jim and also file it on isitruby19.com ?

Yes, I did after I read about in the other thread, it's here:
http://isitruby19.com/commandline

I couldn't find anything current about Jim Freeze, all references I 
found date back four years ago or so ...

It's alsooften that I'm unsure if I'm the problem due lack of skills and 
don't want to hassle the "pro"s :)

but thanks for encouraging,
- Markus
0
markus8698 (53)
5/28/2009 2:42:06 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

How do I install both Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9?
Hi, I have Ruby 1.8 installed (on Linux) in /usr/local/bin/. I want to have a copy of a Ruby 1.9 snapshot around too, so I can try out stuff out with that. But I can't figure out how to install it in a different location. I've altered the "prefix" variable in the Makefile, but when I do a "make install", it just overwrites my Ruby 1.8 installation in /usr/ local/bin. I imagine there is a simple solution to this. Can anyone share it? David Flanagan Hi, In message "Re: How do I install both Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9?" on Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:45:09...

Ruby extension (C++) on OS X [ruby 1.8.2] and Google-Sketchup [ruby 1.8.5]
Hi, I have written a ruby extension in C++ and it works fine on OS X Tiger which ships ruby-1.8.2. With the succesful test of the extension (bundle), I then proceed to try to use it within Google-Sketchup [which I think embeds ruby-1.8.5]. Sketchup crashes the application just loading the extension. 8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------ void Init_rcl(void) { cRCL = rb_define_class("rcl", rb_cObject); <=== /CRASH 8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8...

[ANN] Ruby 1.9.1-p243 and Ruby 1.9.2-preview1 Released
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, RubyKaigi2009 is being held since yesterday. It is the best time to release new tarball of Ruby 1.9. Ruby 1.9.1-p243 and Ruby 1.9.2-preview1 have just been released. == Ruby 1.9.1-p243 This is a patch level release in the 1.9.1 series. It includes bug fixes. see the ChangeLog for more detail * http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/branches/ruby_1_9_1/ChangeLog == Ruby 1.9.2-preview1 This is a preview for the 1.9.2 series. It is just a snapshot. It still have some known bugs, is sometimes unstable. Let us know your view on it. * Socket API was more objectified. * Time was reimplemented and enhanced. Now Time has no max/min value, no year 2038 problem. * New Random class for random number sequence. * Good news for merb users: Method#parameters see the NEWS and the ChangeLog for more detail. * http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/NEWS * http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/ChangeLog == Location Ruby 1.9.1-p243 * ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.9/ruby-1.9.1-p243.tar.bz2 SIZE: 7191348 bytes MD5: 66d4f8403d13623051091347764881a0 SHA256: 39c9850841c0dd5d368f96b854f97c19b21eb28a02200f8b4e151f608092e687 * ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.9/ruby-1.9.1-p243.tar.gz SIZE: 9043825 bytes MD5: 515bfd965814e718c0943abf3dde5494 SHA256: 31598e37b3962643bec722921644957be6f8fb9a26f6c91fa627bd668ea68be4 * ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.9/ruby-1.9.1-p243.zip SIZE: 10307868 bytes MD5: 708667...

Ruby 1.8.4 and Ruby 1.8.6
Hi Experts, I was wondering, if we could use previous version if we installed 1.8.6? i know this is stupid. :) any suggestions? regards, Bala On Feb 28, 2008, at 01:14 AM, Bala wrote: > Hi Experts, > > I was wondering, if we could use previous version if we installed > 1.8.6? > > i know this is stupid. :) any suggestions? [unpack a ruby 1.8.6 tarball and cd into it] /configure --prefix=/path/to/ruby186 make && make install /path/to/ruby186/bin/ruby -v On Feb 28, 2:20 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote: > On Feb 28, 2008, at 01:14 AM, Bala wr...

ruby1.9.2 looking for Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/csv.rb:312
Hi I have just started learning ruby and Im using ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [x86_64-darwin10.5.0]. Im trying to run a program from a book for CSV reader and when I try to run it (using csv file as input) i get error from CSV library which is under 1.8. And Im not sure if its correct.. Can someone please help Thanks guru Processing sample.csv /csv_reader.rb:14:in `read_in_csv_data': uninitialized constant CsvReader::BooksInStock (NameError) from /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/csv.rb:312:in `open_reader' from /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/csv.rb:532:in `parse' from /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/csv.rb:560:in `each' from /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/csv.rb:531:in `parse' from /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/csv.rb:311:in `open_reader' from /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/csv.rb:94:in `foreach' from ./csv_reader.rb:13:in `read_in_csv_data' from ./stock_stats.rb:12 from ./stock_stats.rb:10:in `each' from ./stock_stats.rb:10 -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. i came across this forum http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/206773 but i still dont get what I have to use. Also I thought it might help to provide my code...

Recommended practice for Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.x on Windows
Hi there! Is there any recommended practice for using Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.x on the same Windows PC? I do some work in Rails and a lot of our stuff was written and is working fine in Ruby 1.8..6, so we're hesitant (resistant?) to change it just yet. What I want to do is to slowly start moving to Ruby 1.9.x in parallel so that I can start to see if all is well. Any recommendations? The 1.8.6 was installed using the One Click Installer. Cheers, Mohit. 10/1/2010 | 2:44 PM. On 10.01.2010 07:45, Mohit Sindhwani wrote: > Hi there! Is there any recommended prac...

How to set my default ruby back to 1.8 version after install ruby 1.9?
Hi ,this might be a newbie question and I don't know if it's the right place to ask here: I use opensuse11.1 and it has it's ruby1.8.7 rpm installed , later I tried to compiled a ruby 1.9 on the machine.now when I type : ruby -v It shows ruby 1.9.1p0 (2009-01-30 revision 21907) [x86_64-linux] then all of my gem installed under ruby 1.8.7 lost. since I just want to try 1.9 and some gem will have problem under 1.9 .so I want to set the default ruby still be the ruby1.8.7 . how could I do that ? my ruby1.8.7 has the path :/usr/bin/ruby ruby 1.9 has the path : /usr/local/bin/ruby th...

mysql-ruby for ruby 1.8.1 on windows ...
Does anyone ever compiled them sucessfully? Please post the binary ... thanks In article <bthkt6$7eq5q$1@ID-205437.news.uni-berlin.de>, Useko Netsumi wrote: >Does anyone ever compiled them sucessfully? Please post the binary ... >thanks Yes, I have done compiled this. I'll upload instructions/libs tomorrow in about 15 hours when I'm at work. From memory I had to use some utilities on the mysql client library to change the calling convention. I could then compile mysql-ruby with msys/mingw. In article <slrnbvq4k3.3c2.timsuth@europa.zone>, Tim Sutherland wrote: &g...

Why is Ruby 1.8.6 RC1 more recent than Ruby 1.8.6 Final?
Getting to the Ruby One-click installer for Windows, we may go to http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/ and then http://rubyinstaller.org/download.html however over there, it seems that Ruby 1.8.6 RC1 (patchlevel 383) is actually more recent than Ruby 1.8.6 RC2 (patchlevel 27) or Ruby 1.8.6 Final (patchlevel 26) If I install them on different machines, the RC1 actually shows a more recent date than RC2 or Final, by using ruby -v What's the rule? Does it go strictly by patchlevel? That is, the patchlevel decides how update it is, instead of whether it is R...

Bullet points on Ruby 1.8 vs. 1.9 language??
Is there some list of "bullet points" on the major differences between the syntax of Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9 available somewhere? I'm starting to get serious about testing my small but growing collection of Ruby code with 1.9, so I'm in need of something like "Ruby 1.9 for the Ruby 1.8 programmer." Speaking of which, I'm starting to re-activate my benchmarking and profiling efforts. I had some issues with libtool, gcc 4.2.0, linkers, and gcov a few days ago but they've been mostly resolved. There will be a major update of the MatrixBenchmark in the next coupl...

ruby 1.8.4 gives warnings where ruby 1.8.2 doesn't
Hi, How do I disable warning output in Ruby? The servers at work use ruby 1.8.2, which gives no warning when running some rake / rails scripts. If I rsync / copy those scripts to my ruby 1.8.4 machine and run them there, I get loads of warnings. I don't want to downgrade my beloved Ruby, can anyone tell me how I can simply disable those warnings at run-time? Thanks -- To reply, take of all ZIGs !! Alternative email address: emailZIG@asfandyarZIG.cjbZIG.netZIG Asfand Yar Qazi wrote: > I don't want to downgrade my beloved Ruby, can anyone tell me how I can > simply d...

compiling ruby-1.8.1 + official ruby installer for win?
Hi! I'm trying to compile ruby with VS .NET. I got the following: [...] cl -nologo -O2 -DRUBY_EXPORT -I. -I./win32 -I. -I. -I./missing -c -Tc./w in32/win32.c win32.c win32\win32.c(743) : error C2051: case expression not constant win32\win32.c(761) : error C2051: case expression not constant win32\win32.c(785) : error C2051: case expression not constant win32\win32.c(855) : error C2051: case expression not constant NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'cl' : return code '0x2' Stop. E:\tmp\ruby-1.8.1>cl Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13.00.9466 for 8...

Ruby 1.8 and 1.9
I've just successfully compiled Ruby 1.9 under Cygwin (which was surprisingly easy). Is there a (simple) way to allow 1.8 and 1.9 to co-exist, allowing me to switch between them at will? Thanks Cliff On Aug 31, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Cliff Rowley wrote: > I've just successfully compiled Ruby 1.9 under Cygwin (which was > surprisingly easy). Is there a (simple) way to allow 1.8 and 1.9 to > co-exist, allowing me to switch between them at will? > > Thanks > > Cliff > create an alias or symlink for at least one of them and have them in different directories I...

Ruby 1.9, Ruby Mysql 2.8, Compiling
Hello, all I have successfully compiled and install Ruby 1.9.1.rc2 on 32-bit Ubuntu Intrepid. I have also managed to compile the Ruby MySQL 2.8 native bindings. I eventually got everything going to run Rails 2.2.2 on Ruby 1.9 and connecting to a MySQL database with the native drivers. However, when I hit a page that then hits the databsae, the Webrick 1.3.1 server simply bombs with an immediate exit reporting the following: $ script/server => Booting WEBrick... /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/ action_controller/routing/segments.rb:6: warning: encoding option is...

CentOS 5 and Ruby 1.9.1
Hey all, I'm running CentOS 5.4 - I tried to use yum to install ruby, but the only version available was 1.8.5. I wanted 1.9.1, so I installed it from source and everything works fine. My trouble is that now whenever I try to install other packages via yum that list Ruby as a dependency, yum doesn't know I have installed 1.9.1 and keeps asking to install 1.8.5. I don't want to let that go ahead, since I don't want to goof up the 1.9.1 install. Is there any way to get yum to recognize that I already have 1.9.1 installed and it doesn't need to install 1.8.5? Thanks. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. On 03/05/2010 05:28 PM, Bill Dalessandro wrote: > I'm running CentOS 5.4 - I tried to use yum to install ruby, but the > only version available was 1.8.5. I wanted 1.9.1, so I installed it from > source and everything works fine. > > My trouble is that now whenever I try to install other packages via yum > that list Ruby as a dependency, yum doesn't know I have installed 1.9.1 > and keeps asking to install 1.8.5. I don't want to let that go ahead, > since I don't want to goof up the 1.9.1 install. Is there any way to get > yum to recognize that I already have 1.9.1 installed and it doesn't need > to install 1.8.5? IMHO the best way to go about this is a) either get a RPM from somewhere and install that or b) create the 1.9 version with a specific suffix (so the bi...

ruby-postgres for Ruby 1.9
It looks like ruby-postgres needs some patching due to the changes in rubyio.h. I believe these two changes take care of the problem: /* PQtrace(get_pgconn(obj), fp->f2?fp->f2:fp->f); */ PQtrace(get_pgconn(obj), fp->stdio_file); /* PQprint(fp->f2?fp->f2:fp->f, get_pgresult(obj), &po);*/ PQprint(fp->stdio_file, get_pgresult(obj), &po); I'm using the force a bit here, and assuming that the additional pointer for rw pipes has been deprecated. In my defense it compiles and runs. Who's the current maintainer of ruby-postgres? -- ...

ruby 1.8.1 i386-mswin32 version; binary msysql ruby module to download?
Hi, does anybody have a mysql module binary that I can download, so that I can get mysql working under windows, too? I run ruby 1.8.1-11 under win2k and have no access to a C-compilere here. Thank you, -Armin There is a pure-Ruby Mysql client library on the RAA that works great. Jamey Armin Roehrl wrote: > Hi, > > does anybody have a mysql module binary that > I can download, so that I can get mysql working > under windows, too? I run ruby 1.8.1-11 under win2k and > have no access to a C-compilere here. > > Thank you, > -Armin Confidentialit...

[ANN] Ruby-Locale-0.9.0 / Ruby-Locale for Ruby on Rails-0.1.0
Hi, I'm pleased to announce 2 new libraries for Localization. * Ruby-Locale-0.9.0 * Ruby-Locale for Ruby on Rails-0.1.0 = Website http://rubyforge.org/projects/locale http://www.yotabanana.com/hiki/ruby-locale.html http://www.yotabanana.com/hiki/ruby-locale-howto.html (HOWTO) http://www.yotabanana.com/localeapi/files/README.html (Sample Website) http://www.yotabanana.com/locale_rails_sample/ = Install $ gem install locale $ gem install locale_rails = Ruby-Locale-0.9.0 Ruby-Locale is the pure ruby library which provides basic APIs for localization. It aims to support all environments which ruby works and all kind of programs (GUI, WWW, library, etc), and becomes the hub of other i18n/l10n libs/apps to handle major locale ID standards. * Manage Locale ID(Language Tag) * Thread safe. Each thread has a Locale ID. * POSIX, CLDR, IETF(RFC4646, 3066(BCP47)), Win32 and Java language tags and convert the tag each others. * Auto detect Locale ID. POSIX(Unix/Linux/*BSD), Win32, JRuby, CGI. * Resources * ISO 639-3 languages * ISO 3166 region(countries). * Support Ruby 1.8.7, Ruby 1.9.1, JRuby 1.1.4. Tested on Win32 and Linux. = Ruby-Locale for Ruby on Rails-0.1.0 Ruby-Locale for Ruby on Rails is the L10n plugin which works with Ruby on Rails 2.2. This is the first library which depends on Ruby-Locale. It supports Rails i18n and have the features below: * Auto-Detect the client locale * D...

Ruby 1.9.2 package has library version 1.9.1?
Hi! I downloaded Ruby-1.9.2-0p136 and run configure. It finishes with: ext/include/x86_64-linux/ruby/config.h updated ruby library version = 1.9.1 configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating Makefile So Ruby has a library, which has a different version than the ruby interpreter? thanks in advance ralf Hi Ralf, Did you figure out the version mismatch problem? I have the same issue with 1.9.2p180 on OS X 10.6.6....need to sort this out asap. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ...

Ruby Ripper less Ruby 1.9
Can't seem to find much on this. The last post I could find dated back to 2006. I take it Ripper still can't be used with 1.8.x? [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] Use ruby_parser or parse_tree: http://parsetree.rubyforge.org/ <http://parsetree.rubyforge.org/>Jason On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> wrote: > Can't seem to find much on this. The last post I could find dated back > to 2006. I take it Ripper still can't be used with 1.8.x? > > On Oct 13, 6:18=A0pm, Jason Roelofs <...

ruby-debug for Ruby 1.9 released
see: http://github.com/mark-moseley -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. Mark Moseley wrote: > see: http://github.com/mark-moseley Many thanks. Now I can use 1.9 and not feel sorry for myself :) Much easier transition. =r -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ...

GCC 3.3.3 and Ruby 1.8.0 and 1.8.1
We recently upgraded to GCC 3.3.3 and now we can no longer compile ruby due to its use of some obsoleted constructs. Apparently GCC no longer supports <varargs.h>, and code should be revised to use <stdarg.h> Not knowing anything about it, is there a good workaround? Will this be changed in future versions of Ruby so that it will play nice with the latest GCC? gcc -fPIC -g -O2 -fPIC -mpa-risc-2-0 -I. -I/home/kgr/work/actruby/build/hpux11.0/pa2.0/debug/src/compiled-1.8.0 -I/home/kgr/work/actruby/build/hpux11.0/pa2.0/debug/src/ruby-1.8.0 -I/home/kgr/work/actruby/build/hpux11.0...

Running both Ruby 1.8 and 1.9 on same windows machine
I want to try out Ruby 1.9, but don't want to go whole hog since I have a lot of programs that run just fine with 1.8. I also use RMagick, which seems not to work with 1.9 yet. Can I have both versions of Ruby installed in the Windows environment, but have 1.8 be the default for running Ruby programs? Are there any tricks or tips for doing this? I'm worried about conflict/errors that may arise. --Alex DeCaria -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. On 17/2/2010 11:17 AM, Alex DeCaria wrote: > I want to try out Ruby 1.9, but don't want to go whole hog since I have > ...

Ruby 1.8.7 and1.9.1 installation problems
Hi all I'm running on my machine vindows vista home and ajust can not install ruby 1.8.7 or 1.9.1 on my machine. I used window-installer for this ruby release but after installing i can not install any gems like rails or wxruby . After tipping in cmd : gem install rails,it sais gem is not a internal or external command. What to do to make ruby to work?? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. On 23.05.2010 09:14, Picky Mendoza wrote: > Hi all > I'm running on my machine vindows vista home and ajust can not install > ruby 1.8.7 or 1.9.1 on my machine. > I ...

Web resources about - Ruby 1.8 vs. Ruby 1.9 - comp.lang.ruby

RubyMotion: Ruby for iOS
Interesting new commercial Ruby-based development toolchain for iOS. Based on MacRuby , it produces native iOS apps, but they’re written in Ruby ...

Ruby, Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... 155.48778°W  / 64.73722; -155.48778 Coordinates : 64°44′14″N 155°29′16″W  /  64.73722°N 155.48778°W  / 64.73722; -155.48778 Ruby is a city ...

Tara Ruby Photographys Fotos - Tara Ruby Photography - Facebook
I posted this on here last night at 11:59pm. It has since disappeared from my feed and my wall. So we are posting this here again. :) Today ...

Farmville 2, Ruby Blast, Muzy, Instagram and more on this week’s top 20 Facebook apps growing by MAU
... on our AppData tracking service. Top Gainers This Week Name MAU Gain Gain % 1. FarmVille 2 64,700,000 +6,300,000 + 11% 2. Ruby Blast ...

Ruby Cramer (@rubycramer) on Twitter
Sign in Sign up To bring you Twitter, we and our partners use cookies on our and other websites. Cookies help personalize Twitter content, tailor ...

Pokemon News: ‘Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire’ Australia, NZ Hoopa event, ‘Pokken Tournament’ ...
... Hoopa event is starting in Australia as more details get unveiled for “Pokken Tournament.” A new event is starting out for “Pokemon Omega Ruby ...

Ruby survives 18 months in desert precinct
RUBY the cat who was presumed to be dead has been found alive and well 18 months after she disappeared.

Ruby Tuesday Picks Precision and Emotion Over TV To Woo Moms
"We want them to be pulled in and attracted to something that's really very engaging entertainment that happens to take place in a Ruby Tuesday," ...

Ruby, We Hardly Knew Ye A Pictorial Look Back
Rubio got wiped out on Tuesday, not just wiped out but wiped out by the creature from the black lagoon and on his own turf. Cruel! At least Rubio ...

Get really good at building apps with Ruby, by building real apps
Looking to get involved in web development? Learning Ruby on Rails is a wise and lucrative move. This training package will pay off.

Resources last updated: 3/29/2016 8:19:43 PM