JRuby, Rubinius and MacRuby will support Rails 3, but all three of them are either working on a version to support 1.9 (Jruby), or only targeting 1.9 (the other 2).
We’ve said a few times in the halls that if we had noticed the timing a year ago, 1.9 would probably have been a better 1.0 target, but at this point, changing directions makes no sense. We can focus on Rails 3 among other priorities after 1.0. To ship is to choose ☺ JD From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan Riley Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 2:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility 1) What's the story on the other implementations for Rails 3? In other words, will JRuby, Rubinius, et. al. run Rails 3 out of the gate? If so, are they doing it on a 1.9 compat version or 1.8.7? If they are pursuing the former, no one will be able to fault IronRuby for not supporting Rails. If the latter, well, that's your decision. :) 2) I'm not hard up for running Rails 3 on IronRuby. People are running Rails apps on *nix boxes now. A few more months isn't going to hurt them. Also, while deploying Rails more easily on Windows is a selling point for IronRuby, I think most will likely be on Rails 2.3.5 or previous for some time to come until they get up to speed with Rails 3. We have time. 3) I really don't see Rails, in general, as a primary reason for using IronRuby. There are a number of other libraries (some running on 1.9) that would be more likely candidates for driving IronRuby adoption. Stopping the presses just to get Rails 3 running when that doesn't drive 1.9 forward seems a bit short-sighted. In other words, I like the current plan. :) Ryan Riley Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley Blog: http://wizardsofsmart.net/ Twitter: @panesofglass Website: http://panesofglass.org/ On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jim Deville <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: DISCLAIMER: We haven’t discussed this yet, I’m just tossing it out to get thoughts. One option may be to put Rails 3 compat as the focus for 1.1, so that we do 1.0 in a few months on our current timeline, then put the focus into implementing the needed things for Rails 3. After that we can continue onto 1.9 support. Thoughts? JD From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Orion Edwards Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:51 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility > IronRuby 1.0.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.8.6 compatible > IronRuby 1.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.9 compatible My fear is that releasing 1.0 so close to release of Rails 3 without the ability to run it will do little for IronRuby's image in the wider Ruby community (who, from my admittedly limited experience, care about weather it can run Rails or not). +1. While it seems logical to go down the path jimmy mentioned, It looks like what will happen is that rails3 won't run on IronRuby at all until the 1.x releases build up 1.9 compat to a decent enough point and stabilize. Is 1.9 compat a big deal? It seems like it would be a ton of work to implement 1.9 compatibility in a stable way - thereby leaving IronRuby unable to run rails 3 for a long long time... _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
