World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
Graham 23-Aug-2010 [4582] | You went together? |
Maxim 23-Aug-2010 [4583] | we = he |
Pekr 23-Aug-2010 [4584] | :-) |
Henrik 23-Aug-2010 [4585] | we could have been interesting |
Maxim 23-Aug-2010 [4586] | I'm on vacation too. :-) |
Pekr 23-Aug-2010 [4587x2] | Today I read about the MUI (Amiga). Some ppl still consider it being kind of good aproach to GUIs, and now AROS is getting it too. I mean - if Carl wants to look at some low-level framework, MUI might be the system to study ... |
... but - then we are getting into Max's territory of GUI aproach ... so Max - better release your stuff, before Carl does so :-) | |
Graham 23-Aug-2010 [4589x2] | hasn't carl been given an Amiga 500 or something? |
so he can port R3 | |
Pekr 23-Aug-2010 [4591] | He was given an Amiga, to port R3 to OS4 IIRC. That will surely not be A500 :-) I wonder how fast would View be on A500 though :_) |
Graham 23-Aug-2010 [4592] | There are some new A500 ... accelerated |
Maxim 23-Aug-2010 [4593] | the latest Amiga "clones" can emulate just about any Amiga but magnitudes faster. |
Graham 23-Aug-2010 [4594x2] | I saw a video that Henrik linked to ... |
minimig ?? | |
Pekr 23-Aug-2010 [4596x2] | I really think, that the last big element missing is tasking/IPC interfacing. As Max said - it might influence other subsystems, so I think that such stuff should follow callbacks ... and then adding features here or there would be OK for 3.1, 3.2, etc. Maybe one other thing - rework decoders/encoders to ports asap, before ppl write some codecs to later find them useless ... |
btw - Genesi's smartbook (Motorola's ARM CPU) might be around the corner too - http://bbrv.blogspot.com/2010/08/smartbook-gift-box-comparison.html | |
Graham 23-Aug-2010 [4598x2] | http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=777 |
Where's the information on codecs? | |
Henrik 23-Aug-2010 [4600x2] | The Amiga he received was a Sam440, delivered by Steve Solie from amigaworld.net, AFAIR. |
The intent is to have R3 running before the Amiwest show in October on that machine. | |
Graham 23-Aug-2010 [4602] | crazy prices for a sam440 board |
Henrik 23-Aug-2010 [4603] | probably the best they can do for now. |
Graham 23-Aug-2010 [4604x2] | I'll have to do a few more bounties before I can justify getting a board .... |
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/google-pays-10000-to-fix-10-high-risk-chrome-flaws/7199?tag=nl.e539 bounties for finding bugs ... do we need this? | |
Pekr 24-Aug-2010 [4606] | btw - so we have got callbacks. As I can't see any real examples (probably too early and everybody busy), could anyone share an idea, how are they usefull? I know that "some" external libraries might require them, but any concrete example? |
Maxim 24-Aug-2010 [4607] | OpenGL GLUT events are driven by callbacks, which we can now push into REBOL "user space". so for example, you provide an on-key() or on-mouse-down() callback, and you receive the events, directly at the function. |
Pekr 24-Aug-2010 [4608] | that sounds cool, doesn't it? :-) |
Maxim 24-Aug-2010 [4609] | yep. |
Pekr 24-Aug-2010 [4610x2] | all this nice stuff can be seen as a real ... enabler. I vote for the tasking/IPC being next, changing codecs to streamed port model, and then marking R3 Core a beta .... but not sooner .... |
after we get those two, most of the framework will be ready for the prime-time ... | |
Maxim 24-Aug-2010 [4612] | with a few more network schemes I agree. |
Pekr 24-Aug-2010 [4613] | yes, but network schemes are done on top of the framework itself. Adding them, does not influence the Core itself, while I fear, that not having tasking in the beta, could also mean, that later on it migh generate the need to change our code ... |
Maxim 24-Aug-2010 [4614] | yep, but I mean that the network schemes are important and should be part of the beta phase. we don't have much working right now. |
Pekr 24-Aug-2010 [4615x2] | the tasking/ipc HAS TO be part of the beta. It will influence module code, etc. Codecs might come for 3.1 (unless we produce lot's of codec, which will change later) |
yes - simply put - releasing R3 should mean, that ppl can do at least the same work, as using R2, or we have got a regression .... | |
Robert 24-Aug-2010 [4617x2] | I don't see tasks as that important as callbacks. Can someone please make a clear business-case for tasks? I know it's nice and helpful for some areas but is it mandatory? |
I try to keep away as long as possible. | |
Pekr 24-Aug-2010 [4619] | architecture can't be driven only by the business case point of view imo ... |
AdrianS 24-Aug-2010 [4620] | well, given that REBOL isn't the fastest at processor intensive work, anything that could help spread things out over multiple cores would be welcome |
Pekr 24-Aug-2010 [4621] | just ask BrianH, how tasking/ipc might influence some core areas (especially module code). I fear we might face some incompatibilities. Well, otoh - when Carl finishes callbacks/extensions, what is your idea Robert, Carl should work on next? Even if it would be driven by some business-case? |
AdrianS 24-Aug-2010 [4622x2] | but, IMO, parallel processing should be transparent - we should take a look at how F# exposes concurrent programming - really intuitive |
I guess I can CureCode the request | |
Robert 24-Aug-2010 [4624] | IMO bug fixing should be the focus. |
TomBon 24-Aug-2010 [4625x2] | robert, task, non blocking interfaces? |
async only is not sufficient for this. tasks are essential for commercial developing. | |
Maxim 24-Aug-2010 [4627] | yes... most applications now are multi-threaded if only to make them smoother... the GUI in one thread, heavy lifting in another, for example. async, doesn't allow you to scale, only to time slice. you can still only compute on a single request at a time. if the request needs time to finish (rendering, for example), it effectively blocks all async and I/O handling. |
Robert 24-Aug-2010 [4628] | R3 handles events on a timer base. So there is at least a way to do cooperative multitasking. |
Maxim 24-Aug-2010 [4629] | yes but you are still limited by the quantity you can process. with just about every cpu out there now having at least two cores, its great waste. with most of the serious apps I've done, multi-threading would have made things much easier or in the least smooth and interactive. with servers, I need not present a case, threading speaks for itself. |
AdrianS 24-Aug-2010 [4630] | personally, I'd rather not have the focus be on "threads", but rather on concurrent or parallel programming - if done right, the user should be shielded away from inter-task synchronization as much as possible |
Robert 24-Aug-2010 [4631] | Ok, maybe I need to make clear that I'm not against threads. But IMO it's better to get something done and finished now, and release it. Than keep the pace and concentrate on threads on the next release. |
older newer | first last |