On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Fidel Viegas <fidel.vie...@gmail.com> wrote: > I certainly agree with a few of your points, but you can't compare a > language with a framework.
Alright then. Let me rephrase it. I've got .net book that are 4 and 6 years old that I still reference to this day. I've got a Java Swing book that's ancient that's still very relevant today. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges, there you go. > Ruby, the language, hasn't changed that > much from 1.8.x to 1.9.x. Bullshit. It's changed immensely. Ruby 1.9 has fibers now, there are native threads, there is unicode in fast C, no longer in Ruby. There are actually so many new features in 1.9 people are pissed that it's not named 2.0. I've been playing with all sorts of new 1.9 features the past few weeks. Sadly one of them is not a working MySQL gem, but it'll catch up at some point I'm sure. Do you follow Linux Kernel development at all? It's a cardinal sin to even attempt to change a userland API. Behind the API things evolve immensely, but the API itself, that we as developers build software against, never, ever changes. But then on the rare occasion that it does change, you can bet your ass the version number will move by a lot more than .1. When the Rails API begins to remain unchanged for even a few releases in a row, maybe then you can start calling it things like "mature". -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
