World: r3wp

I still prefer the opposite. Did you see the discussions we had on 
the blog? If you modify my proposal for the additional parse operation 
in the way Volker suggested, by getting rid of the LOAD keyword, 
you can unify the block and string parse dialects. That way you can 
leverage the REBOL loader right in your parse rules but still fall 
back on string parsing if that doesn't work.

And by fall back, I mean backtrack in the Icon sense.

:)  It's why I mentioned it...  I like that approach...but I'd still 
like to be able to explain

the scripts I write (in front of bosses) without going too techie. 
 Maybe we'll get both :)

Do you have to do a line-by-line explanation, or can you give an 
overview?

Both.  Line by line for the simpler, then I'll code a few lines and 
wait to see if they ask
what the sequence is doing.

It puts them in a very comfortable zone and in a head space where 
they can think
about and request very specific options and outcomes.

And I don't have to write UIs that don't attack the problem at hand 
(their problem at
hand, not the one I the coder nerd might be thinking).

Btiffin, from previous discussions, I'm probably with BrianH on this 
one. But I'd like it if you could come up with some scenarios from 
real life. Then each of us could try our approach to solving the 
problems and compare.

load/relax can be written based on this: http://www.rebol.net/cookbook/recipes/0042.html
;)

Volker; Not sure.  This type of thing happens when bosses type their 
own data...They

don't really really need to type their own data, but it empowers 
them.

10-Mar-2007 $12,002.34 "Home Hardware" "Tile Saw"
1--Mar-2007 $12002.34 "Home Hardware" "Tile Saw"


It's the fact that REBOL "knows" it's a syntax error, that got me 
to thinking about 

gibberish! or the invalid? test in the first place.  I'd like to 
be able to show the user

where the data failed, call notepad and let them try again.  Now 
I just say
try again
 and call notepad,  can't help them much.

text: {
10-Mar-2007 $12,002.34 "Home Hardware" "Tile Saw"
1--Mar-2007 $12002.34 "Home Hardware" "Tile Saw"
}
parse text blk-rule: [
    some [
        str:
        newline |

        #";" [thru newline | to end] new: (probe copy/part str new) |
        [#"[" | #"("] blk-rule |
        [#"]" | #")"] break |
        skip (
            either attempt [
                set [value new] load/next str
            ] [
                probe :value
            ] [
                new: find str " "
                print ["GIBBERISH" copy/part str new]
            ]
        ) :new
    ]
]

based on that you can build your own load (add code to collect stuff 
in blocks) and add "spellchecking" in the gibberish-part.

ml-contest, smartest loader? :)

Cool...

Jaime, (f a b) *must* be quoted or be in a quoted list (maybe using 
the "funny" way of quoting available for macros ;) for it not being 
a function call.

Jaime: you can write a REBOL interpreter in C but you can't compile 
REBOL to C. You can compile Scheme to REBOL but you can't compile 
REBOL to Scheme. The conclusion is that there is something in REBOL 
that Scheme lacks. If you make a language X that has the same features 
as REBOL, then it becomes easy to compile REBOL to X (X will need 
to be an interpreter - well, always assuming you don't have a special 
CPU that can make REBOL compilable).

Gabriele - isn't it in fact big defficiency of Rebol, that it can't 
be compiled? That way we are one level slower than others, forever, 
no? :-) well, I probably oversimplified it few bits :-) I suspect 
that is the price for the ability to have self modifying code, but 
if I understand it correctly from what Jaime says, Scheme or Lisp 
are self-modifying too, yet those can be compiled .... Where is the 
difference? Any simple clarification for non low-level language person 
like me?

rebol is not compilable because it can express things that a compilable 
language cannot express.

if you are willing to give up the advantage in expressivity, you 
can just use a compilable dialect and compile to rebcode or even 
C etc.

also keep in mind that 90% (or maybe even 99%) or rebol scripts that 
people write could be compiled, as they don't take advantage of 100% 
of rebol

(but I guess that 80% of my scripts are not compilable ;)

hotspot can compile code which changes later, so i am not conviced 
:)

i think self and its "childs" could do it.

Err... most of my code surely cannot compile either :)

Remember, too, that REBOL is not first and foremost a programming 
language. If that had been the main goal for REBOL, I have no doubt 
that Carl would have designed it to be compilable, and probably provided 
a compiler from the beginning.

I still think that most of my code is compilable - you just need 
to think about the semantics in the right way.

Its compilable if some of the info is gathered on runtime IMHO. Maybe 
with the option to switch back to the intepreted code, to solve gabireles 
changed 'if.

One of the tricks you would need is to realize that there is no "REBOL" 
language. Each dialect is semantically a seperate language, with 
a different execution model. You can't treat REBOL data as a particular 
dialect until you know which one, and you often don't know until 
runtime. Because of this you would have to compile at runtime, or 
at least function build time. Any attempt to compile ahead of time 
would change the semantics, in a similar way to how prebol does.


Even at runtime the semantics would be different, but not as different 
as you think. Few people realize that while the DO dialect looks 
a lot like a Lisp or Scheme clone, its underlying semantics are quite 
different - and yet they still are able to program in REBOL just 
fine. You could change the underlying semantics to a completely different 
model and keep all but the most guru of programming similar enough 
that most people won't notice the difference. The only main change 
would be to make the code blocks of compiled functions unchangeable 
once the function is built - so no more patching running code.

Don't expect too much of a speedup though. REBOL is really fast already, 
and runtime compilation has some overhead itself.

Yes, compilation must be done on block-level, and preferably after 
the block has already been interpret. to find function-boundaries. 
but self could go half as fast as c, and hotspot even faster. while 
switching back and forth between compiled and interpreted code.

and for scripting there would be a slowdown, except if the vm could 
store the results of the compilation as exe, with the original interpreter-code. 
kind of quick loadable memory-dump.

(dont ask me how that works, i only know some system can do it)

Volker;  Thank you.  Your parsing data code made me and REBOL look 
like heroes

today.  :)  Another happy boss, less afraid of his computer.  We 
all win.  Thanks!

I really would like to see some of my functions compilable, using 
rebcode or something else... Since I'm now working on a new version 
of my rebol/flash dialect, I found very difficult to bind functions 
into another (recursive) function's context. At this moment I still 
have to define these "inside" functions in the recursive function 
always when I call it, so it must be slower. Maybe it would be enough 
form me, just to have some more easy and fast way how to get such 
functions into specified context. But maybe I just have bad approach.

(f a b) *must* be quoted or be in a quoted list (maybe using the 

funny" way of quoting available for macros ;) for it not being a 
function call." This is simply not true. Not with syntax-case macros. 
You need to know that Scheme Macro system is different and a lot 
better than the one used by lisp as pointed by the article.

See example 6. That introduces a macro for setters and getters, and 
depending the position of the variable it behaves one way or another.

I don't think the compilation of Rebol language has anything to do 
with CPU features. But CPU are algorithms in silicon, so maybe you 
could in the future expedite branch searching.

And regarding quotation, every block in rebol is quoted in the sense 
that it is just data. It only acquires meaning when passed thru some 
form of evaluation. Like DO or a Func eval on a block.  Square Bracket 
become the form (quote arg ...) of Scheme.

Regarding the conclusing I find this base less. There is nothing 
missing in Scheme. The first Rebol interpreter was written in Scheme. 
I already said this both languages are Turing complete so they can 
perform the same computations. As I said the topic of compilation 
vs interpretation is arid regarding PLD. But compilation vs compilation 
is important for performance considerations and for bootstrapping.

Compiling Scheme to Rebol has nothing to do with that argument. imo.

There is nothing missing in scheme, but there is something missing 
in rebol :)

Lots of parens for example. To solve such situations, rebol needs 
runtime-informations. Which function do i have here at this moment, 
with how many arguments? Without that information the meaning of 
some code is not clear, and it is only available at runtime. So early 
macros have no chance here.

Then there are dialects. They are data with rebol inside. Which parts 
of a parse-rule can be compiled to rebol? Could work if 'parse is 
a macro, up to some point.

But then there is vid. A macro would need to write a lot [ make face[] 
]. Such things grow big. And even then, look at [text a b] . At runtime 
this is easy, [a: 60x24 b: "Hello Scheme"], no problem. At macro-time 
no chance IMHO.

Scheme can be compiled to rebol, because a scheme-programmer has 
to give enough informations at compile-time. Rebol can not be compiled 
to scheme because rebol lacks that information. Making the life for 
the programmer easier, because more can be implicit.

Scheme could interpet dialects too, but then its no longer compiled. 
ANd it can not as good, because rebol-data can reference locals. 
Symbols with context. And scheme can not AFAIK, symbols are only 
unique strings. (i still hope i miss something, maybe a schemer would 
use little closures?)

(MY first counter: making to much implicit actually makes life for 
programmers harder, when he reads it. But that holds for large programms, 
and rebol is optimized for small.

the first rebol interpreter was written in C (not Scheme) by a Schemer... 
and indeed it was *not* rebol and Carl had to rewrite it from scratch. 
:)

so, if there's nothing missing in scheme, i challenge you to write 
a translator from rebol to scheme. i will do a translator from scheme 
to rebol if you want me to. this has nothing to do with being turing 
complete. brainfuck is turing complete, but don't tell me it's the 
same as scheme.

i will do a translator from scheme to rebol if you want me to.
 <--- don't you have R3 stuff to do? :-)

do you expect me to do that overnight? ;) also, i think it's very 
easy to do. (a translator does not mean that all the function are 
then available, just that you translate code, and as long as you 
define the functions in rebol, then you can evaluate it)

and anyway, i don't think jaime will ever be able to do a rebol>scheme 
so there's no problem ;)

although I'm not an expert on languages (even if I have been fiddling 
with antidote a bit) the binding of code in REBOL seems to be the 
compilation killer.  the fact that any data only gets meaning when 
a particular part of code is reached and depending on the current 
state of the whole heap, means its impossible to compile by default.

btw, trying to bring the discussion to a less tech level  ;-)  some 
people are way lost here  ;-)  I know I am just at the edge of understanding!

but wouldn't the bind command and any internal rebol binding, be 
in fact where the JIT calls are made?  aren't these explicit points 
in time where a JIT could be applied?