> The fact that some people sometimes decide to use other things tells us something about the value of backwards compatibility in uncertain times.
Java, which seems to take it fairly seriously, is way more popular than Ruby is.
I agree that the world changes quickly, but disagree that you need to radically change stuff all the time.
For instance, in Rails, they went from <%= to <% back to <%= for forms. To me as an end user, that is completely useless churn.
Like I've said, I like Ruby and am mostly happy with it, but there's a tendency to rush off after the 'latest new thing!' that at times I view as counterproductive.
You're kidding me, Java? We're talking about compatibility in the context of avoiding code duplication. Java itself is very good at compatibility but compatibility of third party libraries are wildly different, plus Java apps tend to vendor all third party libraries regardless of compatibility guarantees.
As for the Rails <%= thing, where did you get the idea from that they went from <%= to <% and back to <%=? Did all of this happen within the same release minor release cycle? Rails has a strong compatibility policy for minor releases and only tend to break things between different minor releases.
Are you seriously complaining about a compatibility breakage that conforms to their compatibility policy? You knew exactly what kind of guarantees you signed up for. You can't expect developers to never break anything unless you don't want any form of innovation. And as far as I know the old <% form_for %> still works! You don't have to use <%=.
> Are you seriously complaining about a compatibility breakage that conforms to their compatibility policy?
Yes, I am. Just because they have a policy in place doesn't mean that I lose my right to air my opinions.
The point with the <% thing is that it feels a bit too much like gratuitous code churn to me. <%= is what you use to output something, and you do want to output a form, so <%= is what they should have stuck with from the beginning.
The inability to use <%= for form_for was a limitation in ERB. Using <%= for form_for to make things consistent is a new feature since Rails 3. This has got nothing to do with compatibility.
Java, which seems to take it fairly seriously, is way more popular than Ruby is.
I agree that the world changes quickly, but disagree that you need to radically change stuff all the time.
For instance, in Rails, they went from <%= to <% back to <%= for forms. To me as an end user, that is completely useless churn.
Like I've said, I like Ruby and am mostly happy with it, but there's a tendency to rush off after the 'latest new thing!' that at times I view as counterproductive.