World: r3wp

my cebelca,biz app is also quite big and "fancy" and uses only 1 
14x14 image file (icon for filters) :) ..

curecode is also visually full while very clear and clean

but it's not only that, I made apps like this in php and python before 
but they still loaded normally .. the fast loading in my cheyenne 
apps vas also noticed by others with comments "how come it's loading 
THAT fast" ? .. I just said "wasn't me :)"

I wonder how far this kind of approach can be used instead of JS-based 
RIA.

well JS still gives you interactiviry on the client level which would 
be hard to fully duplicate with the server (overlays, popin div-s 
...)

I must admit that, a few years ago, I was the first surprized when 
I put only my first RSP scripts, even more when I added db queries...

only=>online

cebelca.bit iz 90% rendered by the javascript on the client side 
..

but with or without that fast server  is much much better than slow

Right, a lot of UI effects are easier to implement in JS rather than 
generated server-side.

I will send you one DM :)

hehe, thanks :-)

Is there anything stopping a R3 uniserve and cheyenne?

yes, the lack of non-finished tasking model

I think that Doc is not willing to port it to r3, unless threading 
can be used ...

Did R3 reached beta?

nope

Ok nice, so I don't have to list all the other requirements. ;-)

MySQL has a very efficient caching system for queries

are you using mysql query cache?

i was wondering the other day about memcache and Cheyenne

I was thinking more of functional limitations ...

That's the "other requirements" part...

Doc - so if we place BETA sticker on current R3 alpha, will you port 
Cheyenne to it, even if threading will be missing? :-)

are you using mysql query cache?
 It's transparent for the user, MySQL is caching by default.

yeah, but you need to set it up in my.ini, right?

Pekr: it's more than just a word ;-)

Terry: I've never setup anything wrt caching in MySQL.

The only thing I touch in %my.cnf is skip-networking (when uncommented) 
and skip-innodb (when commented).

So, the question is, what are the functional limitations in r3alpha 
that is preventing a port ?

Probably the most impacting one is missing /Library.

Also, I'm not sure if CALL is usable in R3.

Hash! traversing is missing in R3 IIRC, I have to rewrite some code 
for the new map!. (I still don't get why hash! was removed, why can't 
we have hash! and map!?).

there are some funny things with call ... try calling a command shell 
inside the rebol console

Isn't that host kit stuff though?

Probably (I don't have host kit).

well, BrianH would say, download the hostkit and get yourself a curecode 
account!

I would answer, that spending my time reimplementing things like 
/Library, CALL or hash! in R3 using host kit (and giving my rights 
on it away), while code for such features already exists in R2, would 
be extremely stupid from me.

I don't think he can really take anyone's rights from them despite 
the licensing ...

<rant>To be completly honest, I didn't decided yet if I'm ready to 
spend another decade with a new closed source Core as my main programming 
tool. With R2, we had no evolution and no bug fixing during years, 
undocumented features, no info on how GC works, etc...Same causes 
and context producing same consequences, I'm not very optimistic 
for R3. While keeping thinking about it, I've started learning Scala.</rant>

That said, I'll probably use R2 as long as it is working on new platforms 
versions for the existing apps. R2 will always be a very valuable 
tool for prototyping and daily scripting tasks. But I'm now considering 
other choices for my future projects (especially for business projects).

Maarten has moved to Scala

Scala has a lot to offer, especially for server-side. It compares 
very well with others, its main issue is just that it's not REBOL...so 
not easy to wrap a REBOL-addicted mind to it. Besides that, it is 
very promising.

To make things clear for all, I'm still actively working on Cheyenne 
and CureCode. I have a long todo list for both of them (including 
new frameworks for Cheyenne) and intend to continue with it.

Btw, to clarify also other things, "switching to R3" by porting Cheyenne 
(which by itself would took weeks), would put me in difficult position 
where I would have to maintain 2 versions of Cheyenne (R3 version 
and R2 for all my installed personal and business webapps). Making 
a full switch (porting all my web and native apps to R3), would require 
*months* of work. I currently have around 12h a week (7 days) of 
free time for non-business projects. So, "switching" to R3, would 
mean stopping all evolutions on all my products during months, maybe 
a year until I can port everything to R3. This is not an option for 
me.


So, only a "R2 feature-complete" R3 version could make that doable 
in an acceptable time frame (and with much less risks of regressions). 


And all this huge work for what gain? Well, without threading, almost 
none (to be fair, maybe a little bit lighter source code base).

Ok, no business case for porting Cheynne ...

To be completly honest, I didn't decided yet if I'm ready to spend 
another decade with a new closed source Core as my main programming 
tool.

Here here.

Rebol is a mistress.

I'm addicted to the philosophy of "natural language"  cause that's 
what I develop, and how i got started in programming in the first 
place.

I've tried so hard to leave Rebol, but as you see, end up coming 
back.

Actually, I would say that FOREACH works with map! (= hash! traversing) 
and extensions are better than /Library. No host kit required.