World: r3wp

I just had a though this morning about just how different R3 is going 
to be syntactically from R1-R2. For those of you using it, is it 
grossly different? I think I should just continue to study the current 
Rebol since I still have plenty of jobs to do, however, I'm still 
curious what it looks like myself. Personally I doubt if it can be 
so new that what I've learned so far will not be useful but I'd like 
to hear it from those who have real-world experience.

No the syntax is basically the same. There are no radical changes 
to syntax, but in the details, some things behave a little differently, 
some things are allowed and some are forbidden, but you only notice 
that after a while. If you use R2, you'll be able to use R3 immediately. 
The differences lies in the behavior of functions, dialects, etc.

Excellent Henrik. That's what I needed to know. Most of my issues 
are not that R2 doesn't do something or another; they have to do 
with knowledge and experience. Thanks.

Let me see if I can find an interesting mezzanine to post here...

move: func [
    "Move a value or span of values in a series."
    source [series!] "Source series"
    offset [integer!] "Offset to move by, or index to move to"
    /part "Move part of a series"
    length [integer!] "The length of the part to move"

    /skip "Treat the series as records of fixed size" ;; SKIP redefined
    size [integer!] "Size of each record"

    /to "Move to an index relative to the head of the series" ;; TO redefined
] [
    unless length [length: 1]
    if skip [
        offset: offset * size: max 1 size
        length: length * size
    ]
    part: take/part source length
    insert either to [at head source offset] [
        system/words/skip source offset
    ] part
]

not much difference, except for a new TAKE function. but there shouldn't 
be any trouble reading it for R2 users.

That's what I'm talking about...

For me, the 'unless'  was new but I see that it was just what I was 
saying; I need to learn R2 better, because there it did in fact  
exist in R2. Interesting, thanks.

just reading through the built in mezzanines in R2 can be very helpful.

That one is not in the dictionary page. What's your best  method 
to view those?

I usually use the word browser. It holds the newest and the most 
information.

but it did take a while for me to discover 'unless. There has also 
been debate whether it's needed. It makes code a very tiny bit faster. 
That's all.

Ah, I forgot about that one. Thanks.

I think this is also new:

>>>> head foreach [a b d: c] a [change d 'hello]
== [1 2 hello 4 5 hello]

damn... sorry

>> a: [1 2 3 4 5 6]
>> head foreach [a b d: c] a [change d 'hello]
== [1 2 hello 4 5 hello]

Ohhh, but is that cool or what?

posted a bit more about it on my blog.

What about the licensing?

Will users need  a pro type license to access libraries?

How does RT plan on generating revenue?

I don't know much about licensing, but I don't think there will be 
any pro licenses anymore. It doesn't make sense when R3 can talk 
to any library to extend functionality, so it would be easy to get 
around that. Revenue? Ask Carl.

How about cost?

free, I suppose

think and suppose make for lousy answers.

thanks for the critique

These are Rebol Inc questions.

Are we going to see an sctp implementation soon?

well, I won't be making it. :-) I think these questions are better 
suited for later. I need to have a better look at devbase. I suspect 
(sorry, Terry) that it will be a 3rd party job.

actually those questions have been answered already, but some people 
like to pretend they didn't notice. R3 will not be sold. RT makes 
money in other ways. (eg AltMe 3)

http://hmkdesign.dk/rebol/files/f5ab092787305f43a01d825826a9eb51-87.html
<--- small FAQ posted here.

henrik, some bugs in your former blog, it might confuse ppl:


1) "Knowing FOREACH from R2, you can assign a word to each of those 
4 elements " .... while your block shows only [a b c]
2) >> a: [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]
== [1 2 3 4 5 6]

...is wrong too - you miss 7 8 in the ==[] block returned from console 
...

fixed

What a great faq Henrik. Thanks.

Hey, I was just wondering. How big is Rebol3 now (in MB)? Not that 
it matters to me that much but I am curious.

MB? :-)

rebhost.exe - 360KB, rebol.dll - 298KB

Ohh, sorry : ) Wasn't thinking straight. (I am working on a PC, you 
know)

some things are still outside of the R3 distribution, so it might 
balloon a few more kb.

Still incredible, don't you think? So this thing might really work 
on a cellphone/pda?

easily.

Henrik, you know I am a big PS3 fan. How big of a deal would it be 
to port?

I don't know yet much about the porting process, but so far it looks 
like a "fill in the blanks" process, where you need to provide functionality 
for events, timers, threads, etc. That and the documentation for 
whatever OS runs on the PS3. If Linux can run on it, R3 should work 
fine.

It does so I hope that means my next "Amiga" will be a PS3.

The executable size of all versions of REBOL is absolutely tiny.
But the memory footprint when loaded runs into megabytes.

That used to be a showstopper for memory-limited devices such as 
phones/pdas.

It may no longer be if the minimum hardware has caught up with REBOL's 
memory requirements.

R3 typically uses half the memory of R2 right now. Perhaps much less 
on graphics intensive apps.

The cows demo shows that spectacularly.

That's a very promising statistic!

Sure is.

I don't know how much memory an R2 face takes, but a single empty 
GOB in R3 takes 64 bytes.