World: r3wp

I will go so far, that I even think that some part of the community 
became so ignorant, that making R3 fully open sourced would not change 
a bit of this situation. Some real work is needed, and ppl here complain 
that they don't have time to even scan sources of available info. 
Now tell me, how the same ppl are supposed to do any quality code 
for R3, even if it would be open-sourced? Once again - GUI is open-sourced, 
protocols are open-sourced, yet ppl don't even care to test or give 
a feedback.

Pekr easy to say we are bad since the code is closed and only teh 
elected ones can put a hand on it

yoru making my skills in question ? really ? well my head is not 
enough big to think i'm a all mighty guru that's for sure :P

My friend moved to Python (while still using REBOL), claiming it 
is open-sourced. He found some bug, but he was not able nor willing 
to fix it himself. Having sources available was no difference for 
him. He even did not know, where to post bug precisely and he got 
only vague response. Have you ever reported Mozilla or SQLite or 
any other bug? I did. With mozilla it sitted there unfixed for one 
or two years. So please don't tell me, that fully open-sourcing R3 
would make any difference nowadays, when the product is still under 
heavy design and development. Noone claims it is even beta. If RT 
does not release, we complain, if they do release, we complain. Maybe 
Gabriele and Henrik were right in the past - with such public treatment, 
maybe RT should not release until some beta or RC ....

pekr when teh source is wide open and the people are just lazy then 
you can blame them for being loosers but saying they are loosers 
since they can't get hand on the source code is unfair don't you 
think

plus you have to take in note motivation is it affortable to spend 
time in a no one cares and use language ? on extrem thinking you 
can go there too ...

No, I really don't think. I stated it clearly - I have enough experience 
with management to understand current situation and I can tell you 
- having full sources available nowadays would make NO difference 
to speed or quality of R3 development. When product is stable, I 
can imagine how sources do really help ppl to track potential problems, 
provide fixes. But many parts of R3 are simply missing, not yet done. 
Now how many of us here are able to produce the C code quality Carl 
would accept into REBOL anyway? Sooner or later we are going to get 
plug-in interfaces - then we can experiment with some C code extensions 
...

as a matter of fact many people in french community who were really 
moved by rebol stopped about 1 year ago to appear why? most of them 
said they loose their faith in rebol

Shadwolf - open source attribute is not the guarantee of language 
being used. There is plenty of open-sourced stuff out there, which 
is not bigger than REBOL effort ...

Pekr you are talking about having hte source of an unfinished still 
at work thing. And most of us said that once it's official it's better 
to have the source open to not have to wait 1 year to get bug fixes 
or new things

and more the time pass worst is the situation the bugs piles up to 
the sky and you never see the end of fixing them

It's like when carl opens RAMBO some years ago the goal was to get 
some tickets time to time to do some bug fie time to time but as 
teh community worked alot on tracking bugs and doing suggestion the 
number of tickets was massive do you think that's the same thing 
being alone to solve 10  bugs than being alone to solve 4000+ bugs 
?

you contradict yourself. I am not talking about not being open sourced 
at all - I have nothing about open source products. I am just saying, 
that even if R3 would be open-sourced nowadays, the situation would 
not be much different, but some ppl behave like there would be the 
difference. The only difference is in the attitude - some ppl are 
not willing to invest their time = money into closed source product.

many of those bugs are bugs in parts, which are going to be open-sourced.

and i can reply how do you now and since it's not open then we won't 
ever know and as a matter of fact when a project is open source you 
have lot of dinamism in it  yeah some things even open-sourced never 
progress but some other widely extends

and submiting a bug with aving a hand on the source code is improvement 
of the information even if in the end that only CArl who solve the 
bug saying him  this doesn't work properly we expect that and in 
the source code we can see that issue and we propose to solve it 
like that what do you think that's in my opinion a better way to 
get dynamism in the community and even ppl skills enhancement  than 
only getting a black box where you can just say when i do that i 
expect that and that doesn't work

but we are not talking about that I was talking about getting inforamtion 
on the on work in progress if i don't go to 10  different infomation 
spots than I can't get a wide view about who does what when and how 
and the only thing left is to complain "that thing doesn't work" 
on altme  ^^

it reminds me when carl was silent during last summer and many of 
us were pending ofr information (and most of the new source of information 
we get today were created because of the past lack on ths matter

but still then instead of having a resume source of information we 
have a deeply detailed and separated source of information and the 
 wiki tends to resume the work but not getting anough large in the 
resume.

I read this whole discussion. I understand what Geomol is complaining 
about building and making it stable from bottom to top. That is a 
probably good eigeneering practice, but this is a little different. 
IMHO Carl and others don't just have to *code up* the R3 but they 
have to *design* the R3  (it's concrete implementation, it's core 
API, 1000s details) and there are a tons of small decisions to make 
all the time and you have to see and work on it from many angles 
so whole thing will come together well. IMHO

but htat's the case with all teh programs isn't it ?

It's like making games.. if you are cloning another then you have 
a model that you just need to do as efectively and good as you can 
and add a few features and twists here and there. If you are developing 
an unique gameplay, you don't code it up.. you prototype .. work 
here and there because you learn what to do next as you do things

but then if you make dificult for your clients the way to know what 
you do and when you do  to you think your clients are taking you 
serriously starting from the begining

Imagine a client giving a taste to a programer and the programmer 
flee away don't get any news dor month and then comes back with oups 
sorry here is your program dear client ?  Do you think the client 
 will take that attitude as a serious matter ?

taste = task  lol

This aproach surely isn't good for clients that want the product.. 
to me R3 is a research project for now.. R2 is the product.  


But it should be good for community, because you mean you have some 
insight of development process, you can affect it with opinions and 
participating. Wasn't REBOLs biggest complaint always that is't so 
closed. Now you can see all in the open how it's to make it. :)

And as BrianH and others showed, if you want you can actively participate

Ok so now I think this point is been integrated by Carl but he started 
to build lot of information source broker for all teh needs of the 
current task  but as an outsider (yes unfortunatly I'm not in god's 
Secrets...)  it's hard to retrieve relevant information and knows 
what's going on .. that's not to be hard with anyone that's just 
a matter of fact and to have discussed that matter a countless time 
with many ppl in the community (lame outsiders as Pekr would say) 
I'm not the only one feeling that way

I believe several people here have the skill level required to fix 
bugs in the Rebol source code if they could see it.

Janko the thing is teh people working on R2 are the same as the ones 
working on R3 so it comes to why fixing R2 since it's already dead 
and we are cooking a better thing it's better to focus on R3 since 
we are only a couple of guys passionnate with it

I understand you, I am not frustrated about R3 because I don't wait 
for it ... R2 is the product for me , I at this time only care for 
what I can with some certanty use in production and R2 has tons of 
libs, examples, cheyenne .. and as a language it's also more interesting 
and hides more stuff that I can comprehend so exploring what can 
be done with R2 is still exciting to me.

If I had more free time I would probably also be more active in R3 
(at least bitching about it :) but I am at the stage where I need 
to produce stuff .. and I am happy I can use rebol for this

R3 doesn't bore me that's just a bad image sent to the word in the 
way it's done that's all. Look before even doing a single thing a 
big company like apple or microsoft start by promoting it giving 
the  features the roadmap the developpers inside point of view etc 
...

on teh r3 project we really feel that's is like a river the flow 
goes and you never see from where it commes and where it goes

So then knowing if a bug you find in R3 lastest release is already 
known or already solved is hard

yes, I understand that... I was waiting for R3 for years ( I just 
used rebol for smaller stuff here and there at that time ) and frankly 
I was sure R3 is vaporware.. it's a 1 man design process with benefits 
of it and also limitations

and you see some things not advancing for long time like unicode 
support (i'm not even sure that will be a profit to r3 well as i'm 
an idiot i'm certainly wrong on this point)

.0

MS would do it other way.. but they would still need one guy with 
some crazy ideas that actually work and produce something special.. 
and even as big as they are they don't have it.. C# is a copy of 
Java, F# is a copy of OCaml ..

If I were waiting for R3 I would be in an uncertain position too, 
but as Pekr said .. if you have some time you can participate more 
actively probably

denefits would be since there is only one guy with the vision of 
what he wants and how he wants it the creation process will go smoothly 
but the thing is that since the past years the R3 is started many 
 ideas in R3 have been changed a lot of time (like VID)  abd bothing 
ensure us that in the month comming another idea will pop and so 
one making R3 a never ended project

that's how creative processes go.. you have to throw away stuff and 
go with the flow .. if he wouldn't I am sure rebol would be another 
python/ruby ...

I mean it's normal for a program to evolve but it''s not normal to 
be stuck in the first stable output

My theory is that thats why MS can't create great langs .. because 
the sole designer can design it and they have the resources to make 
the thing that was designed quickly ... but upfront design doesn't 
work.. itterative inline design works IMHO

you can always feel a program is not ended but can a program handle 
all the functionalities of now in day computer.

jano no MS vision is rather simplier than that and it's resumed by 
the vision of Bill Gates :"Poor artists invents great artists copies" 
why to invent things when you can simply make billion in inspiring 
from the open source community

it's an alpha stage... :) it's officially not meant to (to your previous 
line)

but eve then it would be better in my opinion that most of the people 
are aware of what's going on how would R3 make it's better for them

janko yes it's in alpha stage and alpha stage is not to be stayed 
for ever stage  ^_^

plus no one knows if in the 2 years to come Carl would have a totally 
different feeling on what he wants rebol to do