World: r4wp

Even with my experimental literal pools allocator, it decreases the 
final size by 10KB only.

I like the part: "Where will Red be deployed when ready?...Everywhere!" 
;-)

Thank you for your presentation Kaj! I've enjoyed it, but I guess 
I'm too involved to be objective. ;-)

My pleasure

(I think the microbenchmark results were posted back in the REBOL3 
world.)

Oh, right

BTW, wrt to ARM big size binaries, it's also caused by ARM using 
32-bit words for every instruction, while IA-32 has still a lot of 
8 or 16-bit ones. For example, there's a lot of PUSH 0 instructions 
emitted for the datatype registration block (the unimplemented action 
pointers), that's 16bit on IA-32 and 32-bit on ARM.

However, ARM has also a lot of nice features and advantages over 
Intel CPUs.

I was reading the instruction set in 1987 :-)

[[Just dug out Kaj's numbers for the Mandelbrot benchmark posted 
in the REBOL3 world in Feb 2012:

Red/System: 15
REBOL2: 440
Ruby(1.8): 480


(All relative slowdown compared to the fastest implementation in 
Kaj's tests.)]]

You mean in the video? That's a faster machine

That was pre-faster-floats branch merge for Red/System, after that, 
Red/System score went down to 7 IIRC. ;-)

No, that's just the numbers you posted back in 2012-02. Slowdown 
compared to the performance of your C results back from 2012-02.

Oh, that way

So back then, the Red/System binary took 15x the time of the C binary 
to run to completion. And yes, that was before the float optimisations 
:)

(Not run to completion, but finish the mandelbrot computation. AFAIR, 
you timed from within the programs themselves, not via an external 
tool.)

I did both

Please, let me insist. Can someone test %opengl-glu-glut-h.r (on 
rebol.org) on a (real) X11 environment ?

If I had such an environment, I could test, but I don't, sorry.

real, as in not in a VM?

Yes I have it but not sure it is fast enough and with all the graphics 
drivers need, so it works but not as it should.

Are you using VMware workstation 9.0? They've really improved 3D 
acceleration in this version

No, using VMPlayer v.5.0

well, all I can say is that Ubuntu 12.04 running as guest is very 
smooth, graphically speaking, with 9, and it wasn't like that before

I noticed that Ubuntu 12.04 has broken java which doesn't run Eclipse 
(neither Indigo nor Juno), so I switched to Debian

1 frames in 21.601 seconds = 4.629415304847E-2 FPS
Place mouse cursor inside window to activate it
1 frames in 18.042 seconds = 5.54262276909434E-2 FPS
2864 frames in 5.001 seconds = 572.685462907418 FPS
2774 frames in 5.0 seconds = 554.8 FPS
3012 frames in 5.008 seconds = 601.437699680511 FPS
3138 frames in 5.001 seconds = 627.47450509898 FPS

GPL2 - what does that mean?

Carl once said GPL was a communist manifesto.  My how times have 
changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses

http://www.rebol.com/article/0243.html

This is in order for big companies to not capitalise on REBOL?

Thanks, I will put your link to the comments for him to see his own 
words ;-)

Ah, you already did so, thanks ...

yep :)

Wish you hadn't! lol

He's been under a lot of stress .. no need to stress him more!

My recollection is that GPL programming languages do not affect programs 
written in them

how is that? I thought that having GPL licence means - any app statically 
linked has to release its source code - pretty limiting ...

A lot of commercial software is under GPL, you have only to realase 
the source.

GPL means "free speech" not "free beer"!

 Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you 
 should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that 
 you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the 
 cost. This is a misunderstanding.


Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge 
as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please 
read on.


The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer 
either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, 
we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, 
not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run 
the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with 
or without changes.


Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for 
a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both 
ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the 
price, because users have freedom in using it.


Nonfree programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes 
a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free 
software, though. Price or no price, the program is nonfree because 
users don't have freedom.


Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't 
make the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing 
copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee 
and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate 
activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.


Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on 
it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. 
For a distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit 
to free software development projects or to the Free Software Foundation. 
This way you can advance the world of free software.


Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. 
Don't waste it!


In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you 
charge too low a fee, you won't have anything to spare to support 
development

However, when people think of “selling software”, they usually imagine 
doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary 
rather than free.


So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this 
article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term “selling 
software” and choose some other wording instead. For example, you 
could say “distributing free software for a fee”—that is unambiguous.

IIRC in GPL2  you don't need to release your code, you can link your 
code to gpl2 libs keeping it closed. Am I correct ?

Anyway I think that Carl will go in that direction choosing the rebol 
license (well, hope so)

I don't think in general licence of a language (tool to make a product) 
affects licence of product (or libraries), unless the product is 
the langauge/vm..? but IANAL

This is another way:

you have some libraries open and some closed. So if you don't chaneg 
the open, you don't need to show the closed.

Another Rebol example wuold be: 
Rebol.exe is open source
You script is colsed source.

If you improver rebol.exe, you public your changes. If you modifiy 
your closed script, you haven't to show anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_programming_languages
there are many w/ GPL

WOW I'm very excited of this announce!

Janko, it seems there are many of the same languages that exist both 
in BSD/GPL versions.