World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
[unknown: 5] 2-Feb-2009 [10335] | I hope that the mezzanines are pulled from the main distribution and made as a separate module. I don't care for the mezz stacking and it only contributed to bloating. I would rather build my own mezzanines for purposes or be able to choose from a module containing predefined ones. |
BrianH 2-Feb-2009 [10336x3] | Paul, that is the plan. The old monolithic REBOL will go away once the module system is up and running. There are already functions flagged for moving into non-default modules - especially ones that have limited use or too much overhead. But remember that we add these mezzanines so that we can use them, and many are just cleaned-up versions of code that is used in the GUI, the other mezzanines, the intrinsics, etc. We are trying to keep things as efficient as possible so that the code that is loaded by default is minimal. Still, you will have to realize that REBOL is partly written in REBOL so you can't get rid of everything. |
Some of the new code is there to get rid of common bugs in code that all REBOL programmers write, or to make efficient versions of functions that are done over and over again, poorly. Other functions are being written to figure out where R3 needs some improvement, though they will be usefl on their own (like REWORD). | |
We'll reorganize the functions when we have the facilities to organize stuff (modules). No worries. | |
[unknown: 5] 2-Feb-2009 [10339] | Brian, I'm critical of how Carl and the dev team are handling things at this point. At least from my perspective this project is being managed poorly. The rollout to the new developers to test and provide feedback is not being equipped with a "hit the ground running" gameplan. In order for anyone to know what a function is they must source it and they have no access to examples. Sure we can eventually figure out how the code works but that comes at a cost to each of the new contributors in time and energy when this could have been facilitated by others of the reb dev team. Regarding, the mezz functions, I'm glad to here they won't be built inside the main bin and includes as modules. That is good news. Regarding, chat, Carl needs to run, not walk, away from using console for chat. The more that console chat is used the more concerned I get a feeling that R3 is a mirror of that same level of usability which is not a good impresion. |
BrianH 2-Feb-2009 [10340] | The advantage to the current chat is the messages in it, not the UI. Those messages are still going to be there when the GUI client is in use, and we needed something in place to get the information out there and managed (AltMe wasn't good enough at management). However, you have once again figred ot the plan: Carl intends to run, not walk, away from using console for chat. |
[unknown: 5] 2-Feb-2009 [10341x2] | I hope so Brian, I don't want to be discouraging to others about R3 based on these observations because I know that objectively its a critical analysis in the midst of its evolution which is never a guage of what will be the final product. |
I just think more care needs to taken to expedite those things I mentioned. | |
BrianH 2-Feb-2009 [10343x4] | As for the project management, with the limited number of developers the self-organizing model has been working so far. We will manage to organize more developers when we get more developers. Which the release has not brought us yet - only users and testers (both appreciated). |
We need help. There is only so much Carl and Henrik can do, and I am busy with work right now so I can do even less. I have seen people putting in bug tickets for changes to the wiki - when they could easily make these changes themselves. It's frustrating. | |
You need to ignore the UI of chat for now, because the important problem being worked on now is getting the source file database integrated so developers can see that source you were requesting. Then we will have more developers (in theory) and we can get the GUI working well enough to write the GUI chat client you also requested. Which shouldn't be that hard - all of the tough stuff is either handled by the chat infrastructure (which is mostly there now) or the GUI infrastructure. | |
If you want to help now I can get you an account on the current DevBase - be warned that the GUI is not great yet (because it's R2). | |
[unknown: 5] 2-Feb-2009 [10347] | BrianH, I would love to help out where I can. |
Janko 2-Feb-2009 [10348] | just want to express my oppinion that I am happy of the core things beeing in focus (language, runtime, core libs (tcp...)...) not the "addons" like gui |
BrianH 2-Feb-2009 [10349x2] | I sort of agree, but most of the core bugs were discovered and fixed during the course of writing the "addons" like the GUI or non-core mezzanine functions. Most of the core language enhancements came from the GUI work too. I expect the work on higher-level port schemes will help debug the low-level port code. You need to write the high-level stuff to help refine the low-level stuff. |
I found two bugs, one issue and a potential language enhancement, all about the map! type, all during the writing of one function (REWORD) that many people may not use - it might be one of those functions put in a module that isn't loaded by default. Still, time well spent if it makes map! better for all of us. | |
Janko 2-Feb-2009 [10351x2] | most of the core bugs were discovered and fixed during the course of writing the addons" like the GUI or non-core mezzanine functions" yes, I fully agree with this and understand that higher level code tests and helps design (reiterate) the low level that it's build upon... |
but I still take decision to make chat in CLI first and not focus on GUI etc too quickly very highly. Because having a good core on which gui (or many gui-s) and all things are built seems 100x more important than having *something to show* .. a nice gui on a patched core... I appreciate the priorities and focus, and this tells me that I can rely on R3 being good. | |
BrianH 2-Feb-2009 [10353x2] | You caught onto a good principle there, Janko. We are really focused on the core now with chat. Admittedly, it is the core of chat rather than the core of R3 but the principle is the same: We need the communications infrastructure there so we can communicate now, and that will make it easier to make it pretty later :) |
Don't worry, we are also focused on the core of R3 :) | |
Pekr 2-Feb-2009 [10355x2] | R3 plan for February - http://www.rebol.com/article/0389.html |
very good summary! | |
Kaj 2-Feb-2009 [10357x6] | I ported my CMS to R3 |
The results are not very encouraging | |
It´s written in a simple style, yet I had to make a series of tweaks | |
I encountered several bugs and I had to write a series of wrappers for READ and WRITE to arrive at functions that act compatible between R2 and R3 | |
Eventually, when I built a number of OpenOffice XML files that take three seconds on R2, it took twenty seconds | |
Is there any reason that R3 would be extremely slow under WINE? | |
BrianH 3-Feb-2009 [10363x2] | Please post any bugs you find in CureCode. There are some changes in the way READ and WRITE work though. |
I can't test in WINE, so any bug tickets would be appreciated. | |
Kaj 3-Feb-2009 [10365x3] | Actually, I hit another bug that makes it impossible to port my CMS |
In R2, dir? tests the file node to see if it´s a directory or just a file. However, in R3, dir? works like file? and only tests whether the value ends with a #¨ /¨ | |
This leaves no way to detect an actual directory | |
Graham 3-Feb-2009 [10368x2] | alpha software is out there to be stressed |
One doesn't really expect it to work .... | |
Kaj 3-Feb-2009 [10370] | Did I say otherwise? |
Graham 3-Feb-2009 [10371] | Yes. You're implying it. |
Kaj 3-Feb-2009 [10372] | No, I´m not |
Graham 3-Feb-2009 [10373] | Perhaps not consciously... but that's how it appears to me. |
Kaj 3-Feb-2009 [10374] | Are you a brain doctor? |
Henrik 3-Feb-2009 [10375] | Kaj, can you post some code which breaks DIR? |
Graham 3-Feb-2009 [10376] | Just human |
Pekr 3-Feb-2009 [10377x2] | Why don't you just port dir? func from r2? |
.... it is a mezzanine, you need to port throw-on-error to be compatible ... | |
Kaj 3-Feb-2009 [10379] | ¨ dir? anything¨ |
Henrik 3-Feb-2009 [10380] | interesting... dir? works fine here. |
Kaj 3-Feb-2009 [10381] | Thanks, Petr, that should work |
Henrik 3-Feb-2009 [10382x2] | ah, I get it now |
but it does test correctly for existing directories. it's a little ambiguous, but testing also for EXISTS? could help | |
Graham 3-Feb-2009 [10384] | You sure?? |
older newer | first last |