World: r3wp

but does t/:x still return none when the index doesn't exist? cause 
that is the main advantage of pick for me...

by the term "still" above, I really mean when compared to the pick 
method.

Perter showed you that is the case now in R3.
t/:x == none
if the index X doesn't exist in T

*Peter

So i can make this announce.
PICK is USELESS now in R3, don't ever use

... it  anymore

Except if you don't want functions evaluated.

uh !?

b: reduce [does [print "hi"]]

Here are my results:

>> include %timblk.r
== 1.55177304964539E-2
>> x: 1
== 1
>> t: [1]
== [1]
>> t/:x
== 1
>> t/(x)
== 1
>> pick t x
== 1
>> time-block [t/:x] 0,05
== 4.09841537475586E-7
>> time-block [t/(x)] 0,05
== 4.84228134155273E-7
>> time-block [pick t x] 0,05
== 2.98023223876953E-7

showing, that PICK is the fastest

Steeve: you are not executing the same thing : in the second case, 
x does not advance it's always x +1 with x static. In the first case 
x is incrementing so the pick is not the same at each loop, so it 
depends of t length.

>> x: 1
== 1


>> t: "sldfhg ksdjlfgh sjkdfhgsjkdfhgjksdhfgjkhsdfjkghsdjkfhgkjdhfgjkdghfdjkh"

== {sldfhg ksdjlfgh sjkdfhgsjkdfhgjksdhfgjkhsdfjkghsdjkfhgkjdhfgjkdghfdjkh}

>> dt [loop 1000000 [x: x + 1 pick t x]]
== 0:00:00.406

>> dt [loop 1000000 [pick t x: x + 1]]
== 0:00:00.359

>> dt [loop 1000000 [pick t ++ x]]
== 0:00:00.265

Here, only the length of the code block is explaining the time difference 
(7, 6 or only 4 instructions to interpret).

So, if the following is faster it's because the code block evaluation 
take less time IMO (3 instructions) :

>> x: 1 dt [loop 1000000 [t/(++ x)]]
== 0:00:00.172

Ladislav: I get different results from you. I'm running A49 on Mac 
OS X:

>> fastest [t/(x)] [pick t x]

The first code took 0:00:00.003794

The second code took 0:00:00.004753

>> fastest [t/:x] [pick t x]

The first code took 0:00:00.002759

The second code took 0:00:00.004285

What OS did you run your tests under?

By the way, it is probably far too early to come to any conclusions 
about the relative speeds of different functions in R3 as I believe 
the code has not been optimised yet.

Brian: then my memory is that R3's value slots are not fixed size 
any more, because they will be bigger on 64bit systems, but the current 
version is still 16 bytes per slot. so, you can't trust it being 
that way across versions, but i don't think there are versions that 
use more memory yet.

my OS: Windows XP Prof SP3

Didec, i have the same results than Peter with the A49.
And what you're saying is not the problem i pointed.

See, there something strange with the number of evaluations done.

>> dp [loop 1000000 [pick t x + 1]]
== make object! [
    timer: 517292
    evals: 4000011
    eval-natives: 2000004

>> dp [loop 1000000 [t/(x + 1)]]
== make object! [
    timer: 350263
    evals: 3000011
    eval-natives: 1000004


So the conclusion is that evaluating a path don't  follow the same 
scheme than a block evaluation.

actually resolving a path is faster than calling a native function, 
it was not the case in the past

my Linux results (Mepis 6) show the same pattern as Windows XP

aha, you are using A49, sorry

A49 yields:

>> time-block [t/:x] 0,05
== 1.23858451843262e-007

>> time-block [t/(x)] 0,05
== 1.9371509552002e-007

>> time-block [pick t x] 0,05
== 4.35829162597656e-007

So why is 'pick so much slower?

It may be caused by the change in function algorithm passing, which 
is more complicated, due to multithreading support

algorithm - sorry, I mean argument

It would be good to probably ask Carl on Chat, no?

Gabriele, thanks, I trust your memory better than mine about this. 
This is definitely a good reason why Carl is trying to do Rebin before 
he releases the host code - reducing direct access to internal data 
structures.

So why is 'pick so much slower?

 It might be because of the overhead of looking up the word 'pick 
 to get the function :pick every time, same as in R2. It's not that 
 PICK is slower, it's that path decoding is drastically faster in 
 R3 than it is in R2.

Is REBOL3 going to integrate into the browser at some point?

It seems that was always promised but I don't see where that is becoming 
a reality.

Remember that you asked that question before you ever complain about 
how we've been working on security lately instead of (pet bug). We've 
been catching a lot of flack lately for working on changes to the 
security model, changes that are necessary to make a browser plugin 
that won't get marked as malware. This was the original reason why 
R3 was started :)

Ladislav, I'd like to make your article on Identity into a cookbook 
recipe, so it gets an official listing in the cookbooks list, so 
people can find it. Where do you think it would fit on this page:

http://www.rebol.net/cookbooks/

arg yeah rebol plugin is important and it's a bad thing if people 
considers it as a malware T__T

Recent Flash releases are the thing to beat. If we aren't at least 
as secure as Flash, consider R3 to be malware.

impossible cause rebol is nice like a puppy :P

Remember what puppies can be trained to do :(

well ... if you want to screw Pcs why using rebol anything else is 
 already enought to screw a poor PC

I mean Vb script for example lol ... well ...

Not my PC :)

Mine neithere i removed VB from my windows :P

i have the same XP since 2002 ... T___T Microsoft is borring

Running a vbscript is not the same thing as running a vbscript in 
a browser. Browsers are for running malware, hopefully without getting 
caught by it. Hence the sandboxing, security restrictions, etc.

brianH the solution is to create our own kick ass browser in rebol 
 :P

It's on my todo list, no html though.

this way no need of having to maintain 3 x3 rebol plugins ... lot 
of saved  time for Carl i will say

I think ReBrowse will become more important than a browser plugin.

There's no point to creating a web browser, even a kick-ass one. 
Look at Chrome: It is better in almost every way, but it only has 
< 2% market share (when last I checked). If you create a new browser, 
people will still use their old, crappy IE or Firefox.

That's why ReBrowse won't be a web (html) browser.

Henrik: rebrowse vs plugin.... entirely different targets.

BrianH ... when what screw the fucking browser statistics is the 
fact 95%  of computers are wndows based and 100% of them comes with 
IE ...