
Lots of Rubies, now what? - r11t
http://merbist.com/2009/11/30/lots-of-rubies-now-what/
======
jamesbritt
"The way I see it, for any new Ruby project, you should start be using with
Ruby1.9. If it doesn’t fit your needs, then, consider an alternative."

But first, make sure the alternative implements all of the Ruby you are going
to need.

------
joe_the_user
Is there a problem here?

Yes, there is a problem. The problem may not _be_ the many implementations of
Ruby but there is certainly a problem.

There should be one Ruby _just works_ or, at the least, different Rubies that
can be added and removed only for performance reasons. We aren't there yet and
we should be. Multiple Rubies might be a step there. Let's hope.

\-- Good choice is when you get lots of choice about what tell your system to
do. Bad choice is when you have to make lots of choice _about_ you want the
system to do what you tell it. The Ruby language itself has lots of good
choice in it. But the "now you can choose lots of Rubies" situation is a bad-
choice situation.

~~~
Nwallins
For one Ruby that _just works_ , use 1.8 for legacy apps and 1.9 for recent or
new apps. Consider the alternatives only to augment or if they are needed for
a particular requirement (e.g. JRuby for Java libs, MacRuby for Cocoa, etc.)

