World: r3wp

IIRC Doc did not planned to be 100% compatible either. IIRC he wanted 
to introduce two layers to networking. It comes from his experience 
when working with networking (Uniserve etc.). I think that redesign 
is the right time for language to correct/improve some of concepts. 
I expect REBOL 3.0 to go that route. 2.0 was rewrite too.

IIRC even Carl thought about e.g. some View min-face layered concept, 
at least I do remember it from some blog article. And that is that. 
I am the one who is willing to redesign my few apps for 3.0, IF, 
of course, it adds significant improvements .... so the same goes 
for Orca. If we feel that we have something in Rebol what is limiting 
(conceptual wise), I, in opposite to Sunanda (although understanding 
his pov), am for incompatibility, if done for good ...

... well, but I am not a designer, nor I am in situaion having lots 
of REBOL apps to redesign ...

and you can always use your old 2.x SDK to improve on your apps .... 
having time to redesign for new branch (3.0)

maybe Carl could nowadays tell us something about REBOL 3.0, as some 
info is leaking here or there ...

<<A solution is to create rebol-compat mezz>>

I've suggested to RT a couple of times that REBOL needs a compatibility 
mode for behaviour changes  between its versions.

That would give Carl the freedom to change things (like reverse vs 
head reverse) while guaranteeing (more-or-less) that applications 
continue to work unchanged on newer versions of REBOL.

Perhaps the ORCA crew and RT could exchange ideas on such a mode 
so we don't end up with incompatible compatibility modes.

tuple + number in rebol makes sense IMHO:
!> gray + 30 ; lighter
== 158.158.158
!> 1.2.3 + 0.5 ; i can round myself. i can not deround
== 1.2.3
!> 1.2.3 + 1.1
== 2.3.4

Sunanda, <<A solution is to create rebol-compat mezz>> we have decided 
to provide a compiler flag for backwards compatibility; so you just 
need to recompile to obtain previous behaviour.  We may investigate 
mode switching in the future, but we don't want to carry the bloat.

.

Some stats

Timing test - parse 2000 int/decimal

  Parser                    Seconds
  ---------------------------------
  Thune (C)                 0.0008
  Rebol (built-in)          0.0044
  Thune (rebol-style parse) 0.0097   ; work done in ()
  Rebol (parse)             0.0228   ; Just parse - no ()

Timing test on Lua's fib test.

   Language       Seconds
   ----------------------
   Lua 5.0        0.14
   Thune          0.20
   Orca           0.36
   Rebol          0.80

Basics ops benchmark, measured using Ladislav time-blk tools, results 
in seconds:

;REBOL
;getword  0.08612
;setword  0.2006635
;funccall  0.194279125
;make-object  1.750536

;ORCA
;getword  0.072630
;setword  0.133684
;funccall  0.177569
;make-object  0.917472

BTW. I forgot to mention lowe r is better. So, in some instances 
Orca is two times faster than Rebol.

because it is doing less?

No. As you see the benchmark for basic ops shows that Orca is already 
faster in what the interpreter does the most.

So, Orca can now has a full parse implementation?

Pretty much. It is being fine tuned currently

Jaime, is this something that could be compiled for my Sharp Zaurus?

Probably

Hmmm. It's like Core?

It's part of Core, currently

Thanks.

But some things are also nicer. It's designed as an embeddable library

well it can open guis too, no... using QT?

Yes, on Linux. Hm, maybe on Windows as well

I'll have to try to carve out a bunch of time. I've never compiled 
anything on my Z. Sounds like fun though.

Good luck :-)

Thanks....I'll need it.

Yes. It produces GUIs in OSX too. But you need to install Qt.

Compiling in the sharp zaurus requires an GNU environment, and probably 
a boots trap m2->Makefile.

license question: would there be problems in running BSD or proprietary 
licensed scripts on a GPL based Orca?

GPL languages mean that the GPL only applies to the language and 
not scripts.

A GPL word processor does not write GPL documents

unless it includes some of itself in the document, right?

If a GPL word processor printed out the source of the GPL word processor 
?

lets say it includes macros which where part of the word-processor's 
scripting language.

There's a separate group for discussing the niceties of licensing 
:)

hehe got you there  ;-)  I was just being curious... but the same 
applies... would any script which included derived code from any 
mezzanine or structure within Orca be considered GPL?

I would think so.

Yes, but languages that do that tend to have exceptions or different 
licenses for such code

By the way, Orca is LGPL

IIRC their faq says its not gpl, your code is just data.

And as we all know, in Rebol, all code is just data.

Henrik, you can use BSD and proprietary code with Orca. The interpreter 
is just LGPL code. The idea is that any enhancements to Orca must 
be contributed back. But your specific application code can stay 
closed.

Orca is on the DVD of the current issue 82 of Linux Format magazine 
- more or less. A binary copy is included in the Syllable 0.6.1 that's 
on it

Since there are currently no binary releases for Orca, compiling 
it is somewhat difficult, and I do it regularly anyway for Syllable 
and Linux, I decided to provide one. Orca is included in Syllable, 
and a binary package for Linux is now here:

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/syllable/Orca-0.0.24-1.Linux.i486.zip?download

If you want to spread this link, on the REBOL mailing list for example, 
please do

Or better, use