World: r3wp

So, I am still curious, how Core and Host parts are being abstracted/separated. 
And even then such separation does not mean, that View can be easily 
extracted outside as a module. Extracting only VID is imo nonsense.

to me REBOL the language and REBOL the platform are two different 
things.   forcing view as a requisite to rebol does not allow the 
language to live on its own.


if RT release the equivalent of core and makes that stable, we can 
already build a lot of apps, Back-ends, services, clients, etc.  
I'd rather have networking protocols, a stable set of mezz, continued 
improvements on extensions, than a lot of time waisted on view, delaying 
yet again all we can do with core already.

the OpenGL GUI will not need view, and if someone wants to make a 
cocoa extension or a windows native gui extension... they should 
not be forced to include view in their binaries.

a platform like view is a good thing, not saying it isn't, but its 
a different thing... to me, R3 is about the maturing of the language 
and of its interpreter.

Then good luck to RT, as they should find another mechanism, of how 
to physically isolate various components. With View, there si event 
queue involved, so I wonder, how the eventual split so that you "import 
View can be done. While I like REBOL.dll idea and its isolation, 
I don't like one homogenic Host portion code. It will lead to tonnes 
of various releases. Any ideas here? Could extension isolation interface 
be used for Host code and its componentes? Or are there different 
requirements? I will probably post to R3 Chat, to provoke some ideas 
from Carl. So just stop me, if you think that what I am asking is 
eventually very obvious :-)

At least we need 2 releases: Core and View

not sure those are planned ...

ok, posted Chat questions and suggestion for blog article describing 
"REBOL packaging methods"

Just noticed something else interesting about PHP. I just tried to 
generate an exception by division by zero. No exception was thrown! 
Instead, the result of the above expression was a boolean, false.

Just mulling it over, and I think I like it.

(but only passing consideration, not sure about it.)

Hehe, trying to google something about catching errors, I found Elan, 
Andrew Martin discussing the topic with you, Anton :-) Almost forgot 
those guys we once had ....

http://www.mail-archive.com/[rebol-list-:-rebol-:-com]/msg02468.html

Re. new datatypes. Would all of set-paren!, get-paren! and lit-paren! 
make sense? Working like this:

>> a: 4
>> :(a)
== (4)		; type paren!
>> '(a)
== (a)		; type paren!
>> blk: [a b c]
>> (blk/2): 42
>> b
== 42

I suggested, a get-block! should work, so
:[a b c]
was the same as
reduce [a b c]
Maybe it's better, if it was:
reduce [:a :b :c]
?

I came to think of symmertry between parens and blocks. It make sense 
to me to have a lit-paren! datatype. What about a lit-block! datatype? 
The thing is, parens are evaluated by default, blocks are not. So 
a block acts like a lit-block! would, I guess. Is it a good idea, 
that blocks are not evaluated by default? A lot of functions take 
blocks as arguments. Some functions reduce their block argument, 
some don't. This can be confusing. If blocks were always evaluated, 
functions didn't have to reduce them. And then a lit-block! datatype 
would make sense.

Comments?

Example of functions, that treat they block argument differently:

>> first [a]
== a
>> print [a]
** Script Error: a has no value


If blocks were always evaluated, and we had lit-block!, it would 
look like this:

>> first [a]
** Script Error: a has no value
>> first '[a]
== a
>> print '[a]
a

Consequense is, functions had to be defined using lit-blocks... Nah, 
probably not a good idea. ;-)

*Consequence*

The tuple! datatypes is in the scalar! typeset. Isn't it more like 
a series? Maybe it's because, a tuple can be max 10 bytes!?

John; I've become quite a fan of REBOL unreduced block data.  Super 
handy and learning the wisdom of it is a right of passage.

tuple! is a scalar  imho, well a scalar "record"    insert 1.2.3.4.5 
6  would do what?

Maybe produce 6.1.2.3.4.5. Tuple has some series things to it:

>> second 12.34.56
== 34

Sorry John ... I had ^s turned off ... drop that last snarky bit 
about   insert.   Stupid question that could very well have some 
intelligent and reasonable responses.

:)

But I still see a tuple! as a scalar type with no head or tail really.

I hope, we can one day make new datatypes. I would make a complex 
datatype. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to calculate:

1.2+4.5i * 3.14+1i

Maybe it's too much to hope for, to be able to enhance the lexical 
analysis with new datatype recognision?

Or a range datatype:

>> blk: [a b c d e f g]
>> blk/3-5
== [c d e]

User-defined datatypes won't be recognized lexically, except perhaps 
in serialized form. However, serialized datatypes have to be REBOL 
syntax inside the block. It's too much to hope for REBOL to become 
Perl, or get Lisp's read macros.

You can use whatever syntax you like inside strings though.

Tuples are scalars because you can do math with them. They aren't 
in series! because they don't have position, same as bitset!.

John, actually previous version of rebol had "aggressive" evaluations 
on some blocks in some circumstances and it was quite annoying in 
fact.  it got removed in 2.3 IIRC forcing us to reduce a little more, 
but now we have control.

if the rebol parser catalogued junk, it could shift to custom datatype 
hooks (just like parse tries to match patterns) until it finds a 
rule that says... "YES... up to here, I know what this means".

it definitely is possible language-wise, we are already doing it 
with string parsing and using load/next.  The defining moment here 
is the decision by Carl to "let go" of  the total expressive control 
of the language, and that will not happen soon IIRC.  its already 
cool that he has decided to open source all but the deep core of 
the language.

maybe with R4, after all of the goodies this opening will have brought, 
he will be able to contemplate opening up a bit more.  There is always 
a risk that letting go of *total* control can warp your creation 
to something you don't like.  But my experience in a decade of REBOL 
shows that stuff which isn't "sanctified" by RT have a lot of difficulty 
picking-up speed.


When you (i.e. Carl) spend 10 years on a project and it doesn't take 
off in-part because the responsability of keeping control stymies 
its growth, to a slower pace than that of the industry, IMHO you 
realize that the possible upside to *total* control definitely is 
dwarfed by having a mass of like-minded peers who move along with 
you.  


obviously no one sings exactly the same tune, but you need to try 
out stuff in order to know if its really a good or a bad idea... 
I'd rather have 100 people doing this, and then selecting the obvious 
clear winners than trying to muse about it, try a single idea and 
finally realize it wasn't a good idea.


Plus, what is good philosophy for RT isn't good for everyone... the 
proof is that the PITS model isn't enough for everyone.  Even RT 
had to acknoledge this.

REBOL "The language" is IMHO the best on the surface of Earth, but 
the platform (the actual executable, the desktop, view, IOS, et all) 
all show signs of tearing at the seams when you really want to "DO 
REAL WORK". 


You can get by, but its often painfull, or result to dubious work-arounds. 
  I have a lot of experience in big REBOL apps, so its not just word 
of mouth... I'm one of the few who has been succesffull at PITL work 
in R2 (hobby and commercial) for years.  But not everyone likes to 
say that problem-solving the platform itself is part of the work. 
 Most people want to work, they don't have time to try and fix view, 
or some tcp scheme, or charging their clients 30 hours to find a 
way to make 'CALL  work properly (or implement a MS COMLIB hack).

this looks like a vent, but its not.  I'm actually happy about everything 
that is happening with R3.   :-)

Every single broad decisision in R3 has been an enabling one for 
REBOL at large (both platform and language).   


Unfortunately, some things still require the core to be improved 
a bit, but we are nearing a point where REBOL will be able to fly 
on its own wings.   Just look at my attempt to get OpenGL to work 
with R3... it took me  10 hours of work from downloading the extension-enabled 
R3 version, downloading MS compiler, scrubbing the net for OpenGL 
reference material, libs, examples... and integrating all of this. 
 I've never coded OpenGL directly before... 


now imagine 100 of us doing this... that is what I see in REBOL's 
future within 2 years.  You will have things like trolltech QT bindings 
appearing, REBOL libs for any precise API out there... finally REBOL 
will be able to evolve with the rest of the world, and hopefully, 
impact its philosophy on the Computer Science more obviously...

JSON is a proof that it already has... now let's get that into the 
spotlight and start letting REBOL do what its really good at.... 
high-level application development...


 let it be the MCP for all the cool APIs, libs, network services, 
 game engines, web sites, smart appliances, etc... out there.


 (Refer to the movie Tron, for those who don't know what MCP stands 
 for... ;-)

What's JSON got to do with this?

JSON was inspired in part by REBOL's simplicity.  tis almost a 1:1 
match to rebol's data model... just with a different syntax.

I'll only believe it when I can get this rebol-to-jason to work!

if more people could actually USE REBOL daily, we'd see more of the 
philosophy of REBOL trickling into the industry.   People forget 
that REBOL is born out of a different perspective on computer science.

I don't see why you're having so much trouble... when I read the 
JSON reference docs a few months ago, I could almost do a replace/all 
of a JSON data set to REBOL's  seems pretty obvious to write a lib 
for.f

could almost

lets do JSON discussion in javascript group....

They aren't in series! because they don't have position

What do you mean?

>> t: 11.22.33.44.55.66.77.88.99.00
== 11.22.33.44.55.66.77.88.99.0
>> t/5
== 55
>> third t
== 33

Some series stuff works with tuples, but not all like SKIP.

Ah, maybe you mean, my tuple t by itself doesn't have a position? 
So I can't do: next t

yep... the /1 /2  etc are accessors.

anyone know if any work is being done on the multi processing capabilities 
of R3 or if that has been definitely shelved for later?

later as in...  for 6+ months....