World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
BrianH 12-Jun-2010 [3432x2] | No, duplicating that info on the projects page is fine. If someone is willing to do the work, they deserve to be recognized. |
Think of the projects page as a summary. | |
Graham 12-Jun-2010 [3434x2] | Eh? I'm talking about redundancy ... |
unless the projects page is dynamically generated it will get out of sync rapidly | |
BrianH 12-Jun-2010 [3436] | Right. Redundancy is fine on a summary page. |
Graham 12-Jun-2010 [3437] | Disagree ..it must means more misinformation we don't need |
BrianH 12-Jun-2010 [3438] | The lead and status won't change that often. |
Graham 12-Jun-2010 [3439x2] | That's because everything goes so slowly ... |
I don't have that expectation in the future | |
BrianH 12-Jun-2010 [3441x2] | The purpose of a summary page is to allow people to get a quick overview without having to go to the detail pages if they don't need to. |
The lead and status summary are exactly the kind of details you want there. | |
Graham 12-Jun-2010 [3443x2] | So, use parse and extract that detail and put it on the summary page! |
Can you imagine Carl is going to maintain the summary page?? | |
BrianH 12-Jun-2010 [3445] | Fine, but I don't expect the details page to have a summary of the status, I expect it to have a detailed status. If you are expecting projects to have a lot of activity, is it so implausible to imagine the projects page being maintained? |
Graham 12-Jun-2010 [3446] | Yes, because they're different sites and different people. We know Carl is the only one with access to rebol.com pages and history tells us he can't maintain them. |
BrianH 12-Jun-2010 [3447x3] | We know that Carl being the only one with access to rebol.com pages is considered by Carl to be a bug in the permissions system of the rebol.com site, and that he is working on it. |
People with sufficient rank in DevBase are supposed to be able to edit some pages. | |
Of course if that is abused, they lose the rank. | |
Graham 14-Jun-2010 [3450] | Is anything being done to support proxies? |
Pekr 14-Jun-2010 [3451x2] | nothing is done to support anything, imo :-) |
what I like though about the project is the specific one - Codecs being reworked from functional to port model, to better support streaming :-) | |
Graham 14-Jun-2010 [3453] | Does proxy support require work at the C level? |
Pekr 14-Jun-2010 [3454] | I think not necessarily. R2 supported proxies (at least some proxies) too. There was an idea to have networking protocols use OS specific layers. That would still be imo a possibility. |
Pekr 19-Jun-2010 [3455] | fromt he priorities page: "Text codec project has been deferred due to community input. The project will be reorganized to make codecs into a port datatype and allow external codec devices as well as streaming (with port's holding the steam state.)" ---- I really like it :-) |
Ladislav 19-Jun-2010 [3456x3] | Announcing the availability of the http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Pair_enhancements article. Discussion welcome. |
As it looks, due to the efficiency issues (speed), the implementation of REBOL pairs as pairs of floats looks to be the fastest (since AGG needs double values, and conversion from float to double is faster than conversion from integer subpixel count to double using a foating point division looks slow) | |
So, everybody opposing this pair implementation change: please speak now or remain silent for long time... | |
BrianH 19-Jun-2010 [3459] | Ladislav, you need to put the AGG implementation considerations on that page. The page currently looks like you are advocating using 48bit integers, not floats. |
Ladislav 19-Jun-2010 [3460] | OK |
BrianH 19-Jun-2010 [3461] | You might even be able to use doubles on 64bit builds of R3, due to the need to have larger value slots. |
Ladislav 19-Jun-2010 [3462] | has it been already settled how big the available space is? (in 32-bit version we have 96 bits at most, as it looks) |
BrianH 19-Jun-2010 [3463] | Some of the value types require 2 pointers. On a 64bit build, pointers are the same size as doubles. It's an internal matter anyways. |
Anton 20-Jun-2010 [3464x2] | So it looks like 128bits are available. |
I'd prefer to get the 96-bit pairs with each x and y using 16 bits for subpixels, keeping the memory down, and not reducing the integer range. So I'd like to know just *how* much slower this implementation would be than using floats or doubles. | |
Ladislav 20-Jun-2010 [3466] | Anton, do you happen to know any example that would show 96-bit = 48x48 bits with 16-bit subpixels to have an advantage over 2 floats? |
BrianH 20-Jun-2010 [3467] | Anton, there would be no memory savings by using 48x48 integers. The pair would still be in a value slot, and value slots are fixed size. And they would be slower to access because of alignment issues, plus the floating point multiply to convert them to the doubles used internally in AGG. "So it looks like 128bits are available." - only on 64bit builds of R3, not on the 32bit builds we have now. |
Ladislav 20-Jun-2010 [3468x2] | Test results (Brian is right, that 96-bit pairs cannot save any space compared to pairs of floats - actually just 64-bit pairs): 1 conversion of the X coordinate to double when using 96-bit pairs: ca 50 ns 1 conversion of the X coordinate to double when using pairs of floats: ca 10 ns |
Of course, other operations, like conversion to integer, e.g., are needed sometimes, and for those, the situation would be the other way around | |
Anton 21-Jun-2010 [3470x3] | Oh, ok, so R3 is still mainly being built 32-bit. |
Ladislav, no example that shows an advantage springs to mind. Could you also measure conversion to int for 96-bit pairs and pairs of floats? | |
Pairs of floats look more advantageous to me now. | |
Maxim 21-Jun-2010 [3473x2] | I agree on the pairs of floats... much better programatically, especially since the pairs will be used for things other than simple "pixel" coordinates. |
it would also be VERY nice to be able to do tripplets or quads. | |
Ladislav 21-Jun-2010 [3475x2] | hmm, actually, triplets of floats may be possible |
(96 bits) | |
Maxim 21-Jun-2010 [3477] | one thing I wonder is that when 64 bit builds do get released, are we sacrificing the future by tuning the present, using only floats now? |
BrianH 21-Jun-2010 [3478] | We can upgrade to doubles in the future, in the 64bit builds - AGG uses them already. Though I don't know the effects that would have on rounding and such. |
Maxim 21-Jun-2010 [3479] | exactly, I wouldn't want a 64 bit build to perform different maths on values. it should just be faster for bigger numbers. if we go with floats, I feel that we'll be forced to keep them even in 64 bit builds. also, generally, all graphics libs and most math related libs now use doubles. so if we need to convert the floats from rebol everytime we use the value within an extension its going to incur some speed hits no? |
BrianH 21-Jun-2010 [3480x2] | An extension like AGG, which also uses doubles. But we can't fit two doubles in a value slot on a 32bit build, sorry. |
And if we don't fit a pari into a value slot, it changes its whole behavior. | |
older newer | first last |