World: r3wp
[Tech News] Interesting technology
older newer | first last |
Pekr 20-Nov-2009 [4453] | This is nice summary from Thom Holwerda - http://www.osnews.com/story/22505/Google_Unveils_Chrome_OS |
Graham 20-Nov-2009 [4454] | http://lifehacker.com/5408932/chrome-os-virtual-machine-build-ready-for-your-testing?skyline=true&s=x ChromeOS as a VMware image |
Geomol 20-Nov-2009 [4455] | I think the development of Boron is a bit of a shame. The effort should be directed towards R3 instead. Isn't diversity a good thing in many cases? There isn't really any other REBOL-like, modern, internet-ready language out there used at large. (I also think about the "despair and anger" about programming languages, that was linked in the "Chat (not web public)" group.) I think, competition might actually be a good thing in this situation. I was looking for, what project "Wildman" really is/was, and I found this page: http://www.rebol.com/priorities.html That's written 5-January-2007. I think, language competition is needed. |
Henrik 20-Nov-2009 [4456] | I think, language competition is needed. I completely disagree. It sounds to me like you're not in touch with what R3 is about, which I don't understand since you have such a great insight to REBOL programming: - You know that our resources are scarce. There are very few REBOL experts and they are all working. - You know that R3's source model will deliver the much needed flexibility in extensions, hosts and open source code. - You know that R3 development is moving forward at a steady pace. - You know there is a clause to put R3 in other people's hands, if RT bows under. - You know that the R3 design proces relies heavily on one single reference. - You know that RT can't work any one bit faster if a different developer with similar goals comes in to compete. - You know that dividing REBOL in separate implementations will kill one of its main advantages What can competition possibly give us? Diversity is what brought Linux into the sad state it's in today. |
Geomol 20-Nov-2009 [4457] | Hm, I didn't know, I knew so much. ;-) Should I reply or not? I'm not really in a mood for a deep debate. I'll comment each in short, and that's it. |
Pekr 20-Nov-2009 [4458] | Ah, Kumite :-) |
Geomol 20-Nov-2009 [4459] | 1. "You know that our resources are scarce. There are very few REBOL experts and they are all working." If an expert can't help by delivering C code, which is needed, I guess, then it's better, if that expert use his code elsewhere. (See e.g. Gabriele's last post in "!REBOL3".) 2. "You know that R3's source model will deliver the much needed flexibility in extensions, hosts and open source code." We still wait to see these things. Do you expect people to wait forever? I can understand, many use their REBOL knowledge and try to create something similar themselves, because they're tired of waiting. If there were alternatives, people didn't have to wait, but could move back and forth between languages. That's happening with many other languages. 3. "You know that R3 development is moving forward at a steady pace." And it can continue to do that, even if there were competition. Actually competition might speed some things up. 4. "You know there is a clause to put R3 in other people's hands, if RT bows under." No, I didn't know that. 5. "You know that the R3 design proces relies heavily on one single reference." Yes, and that put REBOL developers in what situation? With alternatives and competition, how would the situation look? I don't think, it needs to be a worse situation than the present one with alternatives. 6. "You know that RT can't work any one bit faster if a different developer with similar goals comes in to compete." No, I didn't know that. Also if the alternative were open source? 7. "You know that dividing REBOL in separate implementations will kill one of its main advantages" So there can be only one? We have R1, R2 and possible R3 in the future. R3 seems to be not very backward compatible, when it comes out. What if there came an alternative, that was more compatible with R2, than what R3 will be? That can't be bad for all our present code written in R2. I'm sorry, if I offended you, I didn't mean to. I like change. And I like good design. |
Pekr 20-Nov-2009 [4460] | Geomol - sometimes I wonder about your ignorance(?), sorry. You are very clever guy, so I really wonder, what is the reason to hear argument like in point 2) Henrik is right - who is more informed than the community members? I remember the time when Carl invited me to R3 GUI world. You all gurus were there, yet he had to invite person like me (causing a noise many times), because of lack of input. So what are we complaining to? Replies to blogs are similar matter. Just don't tell me, you are not informed. Te link to beta project plan - http://rebol.com/r3/docs/project.html was posted here, was posted in November status update IIRC. Twitter message says, Carl is working on Host code NOW. Yesterday we posted, that Carl reported on R3 chat succesfull separation of Host vs kernel and that he is working on MinGw support. The host code is being worked on NOW. So how can you post argument like you posted in point 2)? Isn't it a bit ignorant and disrespectfull to those who care to work on R3? How much support do you expect? I do care to remind Carl to update blogs, we do care to spread info even here, yet you claim "do you expect ppl to wait forever?". And even more so - do YOU expect anyone to wait for mysterious ORCA like project to be closer than R3 is? ORCA actually IS open sourced, for many years. How is that it did not bring competing environment to R2 at least to date? (not to mention its architecture is arcane compared to what R3 provides us?) We are really small community. Everyone of us, can weight his own free time. So now decide for yourself, where do you put your free time REBOL wise. Boron, or R3? As for me, the answer is clear - my energy goes to project, which currently has chance to be completed in close future. Splitting our efforts at this stage can't bring anything usefull imo ... |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4461x3] | I don' t see anyone splitting their effort between R3 and Boron. Carl is working on R3, and Karl is working on Boron. Nobody else is doing much of anything. Carl would never work on Boron and Karl could never work on R3, so nothing is lost |
Splitting efforts is all hypothetical, as everyone else seems to direct their full effort at just talking | |
I'll have to put in an exception for Brian here :-) | |
PeterWood 20-Nov-2009 [4464] | And I for Henrik. He has alos contributed heavily to R3 mainly, but not exclusively, to the GUI so his contribution is not so visible at the moment. |
Henrik 20-Nov-2009 [4465] | Geomol, I'm not offended. I'm only wondering about the seeming lack of awareness on the amount of energy that Carl has been putting into R3 over the past 3 years and being commnunity members, we should all know, right? |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4466x2] | I don' t want to repeat this discussion, but Carl' s effort is not the point. It' s being three years late compared to the promised date |
If R3 had showed up as promised, I would never have had to bother with ORCA and Boron | |
Graham 20-Nov-2009 [4468] | Promised or predicted? |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4469] | Promised; review that link Geomol posted above |
Henrik 20-Nov-2009 [4470] | There was a promised date? When? |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4471] | I said I don' t want to repeat this discussion... |
Henrik 20-Nov-2009 [4472] | The thing I find so strange is that people are so unaware of the development pace of R3 which is why it makes so little sense to work on competing projects. |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4473] | This is not the place to discuss this, but another, strategic issue remains. The modern open source climate around programming languages will never accept R3 without there being an open source alternative |
Henrik 20-Nov-2009 [4474] | well, screw that. I'm not interested in those alternatives. I'm interested in R3. |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4475] | Good for you. Now all the other programmers will say screw REBOL, unless you can wave a do-it-yourself option at them |
Henrik 20-Nov-2009 [4476] | Well, screw them too, because it doesn't sounds like there is any appreciation of why Carl has designed R3 in the way he has. |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4477] | You' re seeing things into this that aren' t there |
Henrik 20-Nov-2009 [4478] | I'm seeing that Geomol finds that it's a good idea to have a competing project to REBOL 3. Given the way R3 is designed with as many open source parts as possible and as many extensible parts as possible to provide a platform for potentially hundreds of developers to extend in nearly any direction, I'd say that idea makes little sense. |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4479x2] | Again, that' s your opinion. R3 is not just vying for your support |
If you were to scratch old Amiga faithfuls from this community, I' m afraid I would be the only one remaining | |
Chris 20-Nov-2009 [4481x2] | I wouldn't say it's competing, more complementary. An open source clone is still dependent on the original for direction, but has a place for those that require open source all the way. Would that effort be better directed to R3? That depends on what is driving the developer behind Boron. |
(which, by the way is a far less elegant name than Orca) | |
Graham 20-Nov-2009 [4483] | Borat is better |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4484] | Sure, but ORCA was triple-overloaded, including another language |
Geomol 20-Nov-2009 [4485] | For people reading this, that might not know. There was a R3-Alpha AltME world running from june 2007 with lots of discussion incl. many well known REBOL developers. The chat take up more than 9 MB of disk space. Activity died out early this year, and some of it continued in R3 chat. |
Graham 20-Nov-2009 [4486] | And the reason was?? |
Geomol 20-Nov-2009 [4487] | The reason for it dying out? Carl created R3 chat and moved there. Many didn't follow, I guess. |
Graham 20-Nov-2009 [4488] | And the other reason was .. that Carl didn't actually turn up much in r3alpha world |
Geomol 20-Nov-2009 [4489] | I can only speak for myself. I found lots of the discussion in R3-Alpha good and giving, but I also found the actual progress unstructured. I saw it like building a very tall building (like a skyscraper), where you work on all stores at the same time. I prefer to start from the ground, make every store solid and finished before moving on to the next store. |
BrianH 20-Nov-2009 [4490x4] | The reason was that AltME didn't turn out to be a good tool for having a focused development discussion. Add more than 5 people and it degenerated into useless flamewars. This is why a separate R3 world was created with just 5 people in it, until we could get to the point of creating a development communications infrastructure that would be able to handle more developers. That was R3 chat (formerly known as DevBase) and CureCode (formerly planned as BugBase, but implemented by a third-party instead). |
In January of 2008 (more or less, maybe as early as Nov 2007) we restarted the project. Except for some port model stuff, everything we've done on R3 has been done since then. That is why we say that R3 has only taken 2 years so far. | |
As for Boron, I'm all for it, as long as it is license comopatible. The ORCA license precluded any sharing with REBOL (the license choice seemed to do that deliberately), so any work on it was necessarily divisive. Which is why it hasn't really gone anywhere. If Boron chooses a open source license that is compatible with R3's open source license, then there will be no reason to choose one instead of the other - you can choose both, and have work on one benefit both. | |
This is why Mono and .NET work so well together: Their open source portions can be used by each other. This is why more and more of Microsoft's development tools are being released with open source licenses. | |
Kaj 20-Nov-2009 [4494x2] | That's easy then. Carl hasn' t come up with a license yet, so he would have to use the Boron license |
This is the first time I hear there was a development reset. Why was that? | |
BrianH 20-Nov-2009 [4496] | Design process broke down, and needed a reboot. We know how to build a language, but we weren't as good at building a working community development model that was compatible with the language design standards. All better now :) |
Pekr 20-Nov-2009 [4497x6] | Kaj - I am really not sure we have to hear such a crap ... anyone carrying a brain in his head CAN properly follow what R3 development is all about, how MUCH energy is being put into that. Anything else is a junk ... |
I can't believe I can read reactions dismissing the effort. And I really stop to care ... | |
That open source idiocism really plays on my nerves. So ppl have Orca for 4 years? Isn't it open source version of REBOL? Yet we can hear, that if R3 is not fully open sourced, it will not be accepted. Accepted by whom? A GPL freaks? Should we care? I have really no respect to such ppl. Where is Orca nowadays? That open-source-being-a-cure-for-all-problems is really turning into being rudiculous | |
Henrik is totally right. Even if R3 would be 100% open-sourced, the same ppl would still find some excuses to complain about. Screw them :-) | |
Geomol - please stop complaining about R3 alpha or R3 GUI world. You were one of the invited top developers, yet you was one of those failing to provide a feedback. I remember how you all preferred to chat about science here, instead of providing any reasonable input. So what actually are you complaining about? | |
... because - I was there, daily. And if I wanted, I could talk to Carl, on almost a daily basis, privately. Anyone could ... | |
older newer | first last |