World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Pekr 26-Jun-2008 [6095] | hehe, alone on r3-alpha world now - now it is MY world :-) |
GiuseppeC 26-Jun-2008 [6096x3] | Pekr, I have a clear vision of the development cycle and time: 2010 is the year we will go out of beta. |
So quit now ! :-) | |
I like the project and I appreciate the effiorts of Carl and the community and I take it as is. It is a gift of a genius which has spent a lot of money during the years and which surely doesn't have other golden treasures to give to project. | |
Pekr 26-Jun-2008 [6099] | in 2010 REBOL will be irrelevant ... |
GiuseppeC 26-Jun-2008 [6100] | I am not so pessimistic. REBOL in 2010 will be a nice programming language. It will be our role to develop the connections to the outer world like the community did with REBOL 2. |
Chris 26-Jun-2008 [6101] | Petr, I think you overestimate the competition. Rebol has an enduring quality that, so long as the company keeps going, will be very relevant in 2010 and beyond. Just as it's relevant now, despite previous predictions to the contrary... |
Graham 27-Jun-2008 [6102] | I think that's true ... because there's a fundamental language advantage that can not be overcome no matter what the competition does. |
Henrik 27-Jun-2008 [6103] | I said a long time ago that computer languages don't age like the software technologies built upon them. still think I'm right. :-) |
Pekr 27-Jun-2008 [6104] | I am not sure I overestimate it that much. There is several layers to my statement. As for the technology and its quality, I can agree - REBOL is nice technology. But - from the marketing/adoption side, you have some open windows available. The first one was during the momentum of REBOL being new. We wasted it greatly. I can see another widnow being open, for some year or max two years back - RIA. I do remember when I first tried Adobe Air - it was a joke. Attempt at non system UI, and they repeated some mistakes of ours. Now we can see articles about Flash/Flex, Silverlight, Curl, etc., but no REBOL. In 2010 that market will be well established. Mobile players will choose their technologies and they will not be able to look back. It is really important to get R3 out the door in 2008. |
Henrik 27-Jun-2008 [6105] | I find it interesting that there is so much focus on comparing REBOL to Flash/Silverlight. REBOL does far more than both of them together do. In the long run, I think REBOL can become more relevant than Flash or Silverlight, as they are narrowly focused technologies that at some point will become outdated and replaced by other technologies that do a better job in the same narrow field. REBOL has no such limitation. |
Pekr 27-Jun-2008 [6106] | Narrow field? Why do you consider them being narrow? Is Action Scrip somehow limited? And look into most mp3 players, their UI, their games, etc. - everything Flash based. The market for such device starts being crowded. We will see what impact will there be on Android and Symbian in the future ... |
Henrik 27-Jun-2008 [6107] | I would definitely not be using action script for 90% of the work I do with REBOL... |
Chris 27-Jun-2008 [6108x2] | It may well be a missed opportunity for Rebol as a front end, but frankly I'd rather see R3 done right than speculatively rush it to market. I see greater opportunities in the future for a feature complete, mature R3. Even if R3 were the perfect combination of front and back end, RT does not have the leverage of Adobe or MS to establish R3 in the way you suggest. The future of Rebol as I see it is in the grassroots, and for that, R3 must be all that it can be. |
On the other hand, RT should be pushing for the spectrum of Rebol products - Base/Core/View to be included on every OS distribution. Imagine if that had been pursued a few years back: .r would truly be write once, run anywhere... | |
Pekr 27-Jun-2008 [6110] | Nice analysis, Chris ... |
Will 27-Jun-2008 [6111] | I said it already many times and now there is a new opportunity, quicktime browser plugin is today much more popular thanks to iTunes, it is installed in more than 80% of personal computers. quicktime once had a wired scripting language (qscript), Live stage Pro was the only editor for that. Now apple just announced they are working on Quicktime X, they will either drop scripting completely or they will put something new in. That new scripting in the quicktime plugin SHOULD BE REBOL !! it is a win-win solution. rebol would have access to about 200 media formats, apple will offer the best language for scripting medias, and not limited to that. See, apple really has no interest in seeing flash ported to the iPhone, because the sell iPhones games on their iTunes store, and many other reason. Also in the last year apple has enhanced javascript ability to control quicktime movies in the browser. I have no idea about waht agreement apple and RT should come to, but I'm sure nobody can argument against this theory! Long life rebol! 8-) |
[unknown: 5] 27-Jun-2008 [6112] | If you want to see REBOL expand then build APPS and distribute them with a BSD license. If REBOL isn't "everywhere" then it isn't just Carl's fault - it is ours also. |
Pekr 27-Jun-2008 [6113] | quicktime always sucked, sucks now, and will suck forever. It can take FF3 down. Besides that - who is Apple to define "standard"? Who caros of .mov container? That format is rudiculous and irrelevant :-) |
Will 27-Jun-2008 [6114] | ok Pekr, it suck but it still is one of the most installed browser plugins, add rebol to it and you get rebol installed on all those computers on the next quicktime upgrade, or try and have people install rebol plugin.. ;-) |
Pekr 27-Jun-2008 [6115] | I guarantee you, that .mov is pretty much ignored by Windows users, and very often found being obtrusive. It is recognised by those favoring Mac platform, but not otherwise. Yes, REBOL as a system language of anything would be benefical, but that will not easily happen imo ... |
Gabriele 28-Jun-2008 [6116] | Petr, Apple actually succeeded in making the MOV format a standard: the MP4 format is indeed MOV with some restrictions. Notice that MOV and AVI are both IFF clones (AVI just has the length in reverse order, indeed it's called RIFF, while MOV swaps chunck type and length). The way they are being used is another matter :) |
Graham 28-Jun-2008 [6117x2] | Gabriele .. any updates on what is happening? |
There is a dearth of visible activity | |
Gabriele 28-Jun-2008 [6119] | I don't really see more than what you see... |
Graham 28-Jun-2008 [6120] | Oh .. I assumed that there were private groups |
Pekr 28-Jun-2008 [6121] | Gabriele, I understand you. Mov might be technologically even superior. So I don't know if it is licencsing of Apple or ignorance of Windows probrammers, but - I just want to use one codeck pack - ffdshow for e.g. It is some 5 years I met some video, which was not able to work with it. Any player! But - quicktime is painfull exception! I don't want quicktime player! I want it to play with any player I choose. And it does not seem being so. So, I have also VNC, just to have such problems as getting sound, but not picture, etc. So - no mov for me. |
Henrik 28-Jun-2008 [6122] | I agree that quicktime for windows does not at all show a fair picture of what quicktime is capable of. |
Gabriele 30-Jun-2008 [6123x2] | Petr, I hated QT on windows too (or Itunes etc.). And, I hate the fact that MOV are often very hard to handle with open source software (eg. the DV videos produced by iMovie could not be processed on linux, but this was a couple years ago). But, I don't think it's the format at fault here. mplayer for eg. can easily play any MOV (as well as FLV, AVI, MKV, etc.), and VLC too, and they are both open source, so in principle there are no obstacles. |
I'd rather see MKV or OGM being more used though, since they seem to be much more flexible (never looked inside though, so maybe they are crap ;) | |
Henrik 1-Jul-2008 [6125] | So it would seem that we're almost back in business after some time in the quiet. Carl has been talking about vast simplification of how people can do networking. A bit in the same way as when you send data with a webbrowser from a form, you don't mess around with ports, but simple HTML code to do that. There will be more information about this later. |
james_nak 1-Jul-2008 [6126] | Cool. |
shadwolf 7-Jul-2008 [6127x8] | Hello Carl and VID3 dev team i'm wondering something. I recently read alot on rebol3 lot of things are hsarper (VID3 is really more performant with drawing statements for example). But as much i read so far I didn't found information about several topics. |
What are the memory management enhancement proposed ? We all saw how it was difficulte to manage the mémory in previous rebol. For small data content that not a big issue but as soon you start to play with grafical content the mémory stack is amazing ( for example this code http://shadwolf.free.fr/berlinClock.ziptakes 10Mo when running and in my opinion that from far 9M mega wasted ...). Can it be a way to make the recycle function more efficient to trap all non in use data | |
preset in the memory stack | |
next thing is the VID2 event system in same code we can see the rate face feel function don't allow the event handling for the other face the Quit button for example. (still in same code). Those things are trivial and i don't imagine to have to search hours and hours a way to solve them. | |
last thing is the "extension" modules I would like to know how it's planned to handle them when u add an external DLL to rebol VM your goal is not to have to rewrite a brigde code for each of your DLL you want to work with and you don't want too your rebol application code to be over complexified in regard to the regular rebol code wich use shaped dialects. I know that's not easy thing to do .... | |
I want to be able to use any DLL in a rebolist way to resume that's maybe an utopy but dreams allows | |
made the humanity advance ^^ | |
VLC is handling MPEG2 too and hum it's patented and hum lets say the authors hum .... how to say ..... hum .... well they just don't care | |
Graham 7-Jul-2008 [6135] | I believe efficient memory use is going to be a major focus. |
BrianH 7-Jul-2008 [6136x3] | There's no reason that the authors of VLC should care about software patents, shadwolf: Where they live (France), software patents are illegal and can be ignored. Go France! |
Memory management: R2 gets a bad rap for this because Windows doesn't report the working set seperately, so the numbers it reports are a little inflated with page file memory. Nonetheless, R3 should be better with memory. | |
The extension modules spec (as you call it) hasn't been specified, or even discussed at length yet. That's next. | |
Henrik 7-Jul-2008 [6139] | I think the graphics engine is much more memory efficient in R3. A single GOB takes up 64 bytes of memory where a FACE in R2 takes up much more memory. |
BrianH 7-Jul-2008 [6140] | Making sure to minimize extra references to data will make them more collectable too. The change in function contexts helps with that. |
Graham 7-Jul-2008 [6141] | but of course we don't know what is happening with Vid3.4 yet |
Henrik 7-Jul-2008 [6142x2] | this gives greater performance scaling: R3 can easily handle thousands of GOBs, while R2 may suffer performance wise when handling hundreds. |
of course a face and a GOB is not directly comparable, but just run the 1000cows.r demo to see the difference :-) | |
BrianH 7-Jul-2008 [6144] | VID is at a higher level than gobs, but Graham has a good point. All we know is that it will be good code, because Carl is doing it :) |
older newer | first last |