Hacker News Reader

Well Ruby is too. If something worked on 1.9 it works on 2.3.

Yeah? Try rails 3.2.17 which work perfectly on ruby 1.9 and see how well it works on 2.2.

(java is not fully backwards compatible either, but it may be a bit more tolerant in some cases)

Rails isn't ruby.

It's Ruby on Rails

Did I claim that? However, it is written in ruby and as such it is a valid counterexample to the claim in the comment I commented on.

I've done the work before to make rails 3.2 work on 2.2. I recall the problem is due to a breaking Bcrypt name change and Yaml serialization, and it's a one line patch. The maintainers are aware of the issue but held back so as to not break every 3.2 installation on a minor upgrade (would have to be called Rails 3.3 for semver?). Rails 4.0 isnt that hard of an upgrade path if you include the attraccessible gem.

It took quite a while before rails released a version of 3.2 that worked.

As for how fun upgrading to rails4 is, you obviously don't have a project with 200 database tables that has models using the attr_protected for the five columns (appwide) that actually need it. Forced whitelisting is not fun, regardless of if it is on model or controller level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com