World: r4wp
[#Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4234] | I mean - never mind you did not use VID ... |
Steeve 22-Nov-2012 [4235x3] | I will post something on Github but I can't say too much too soon. I don't want to announce another abandonware. If I can finalize the text editing it could be the beginning of... something. :-) |
Pekr, I resolved the issue by stacking one gob per dialect (draw, rich-text, shape) inside one gob container. I always use the same model and my VID engine manage itself the creation of the sub-gobs. | |
so that the user only see one face (the container) | |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4238] | We should move to REBOL3 probably. Reddians are not interested in View anyway, they seem to prefer more heavy-weight tools :-) |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4239] | I'll make you eat those words :-) |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4240x3] | :-) |
Well, I don't necessarily like big solutions/libraries. Of course it will make sense, if they are already a part of the toolchain, e.g. GTK being part of every linux distro, Android, etc. , ditto Cairo. So far I could see complaints about AGG not being accelerated, and what irritates me about such claims is - we never ever utilised full advantage of AGG, yet we complain. And then we are going to use crap like Cairo, just becau HW is going to help us. I would rather use smaller AGG instead of several times bigger Cairo lib, and orientiate myself on HW, which has floating point unit. Before we finish, even our small devices are going all to have FPU imo ... | |
Everybody should use what he likes too, we should not remember though, that it was View itself, which attracted many new users, and historically we could find many questions, if Red is going to have engine like View is ... | |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4243] | Actually, the Fibonacci function should run very fast in the target (optimizing) compiler as there are only math expressions and the whole body has Red/System counterparts, so in the target compiler, it should run half-way from R3 and Red/System performances. |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4244] | In the end I think, that having easy to maintain GUI is not necessarily related to the backend itself, and that keeps me attracted to Red, as I know, that Doc will not tolerate any unnecessary bloated solution :-) |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4245x2] | Yes, we release Core before we release View ;-) |
And Core has even been released before Chat :-) | |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4247] | Pekr: you have a wrong view on what the Red ecosystem is and will be. It is probably caused by 15 years of limited options from RT and closed-source nature of REBOL products. In Red ecosystem, like in any most other languages ecosystems, you'll be able to choose GUI between different options. Don't give a wrong picture of Red by assuming that you will be limited to only one choice. |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4248x2] | As for /Core, /View, /Command etc, I just wonder - will there be any such product separation with Red? I mean - you can have big "ecosystem" linked via R/S, so I wonder, if there will be any packaging, or simply products, for certain areas, containing related libs, etc.? Or an environment builder, where you choose modules, or something like that? |
Doc - OK, so that user, who wished all the years RT linked View to VLC, could find his remedy via Red, being bridged to VLC via R/S, right? :-) | |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4250] | Yep |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4251] | Yep, and that user will live happy in the Red world. ;-) |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4252] | btw - libVLC is LGPL 2.1, should be OK to link to, licence-wise? |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4253] | Sure, almost any licence is |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4254x2] | The "RT-like product" separation wouldn't have much meaning in Red where you can build your executables with whatever modules you need. We'll define a common "extension" standard (probably based on module! datatype) that all third-party modules will implement, so that your app could easily use any modules at a cost of a simple "import" directive. Such extensions will be typically coded in Red, but with all the low-level options, like Red/System routines and bindings to external libs. Moreover, you'll have also the alternative option to build everything in a single binary (including third-party libs if they can be statically linked). Such thing is impossible in R2 or closed-source R3. In open-source'd R3, you'll be able to do that too, but you'll have to get your hands dirty by implementing the bindings in C and using a C compiler to produce the executable binary. |
LGPL: no problem. | |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4256x2] | Well - can you statically link LGPL lib? I think not? |
But - no problem loading libs dynamically ... | |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4258x4] | You can, if you provide your object code so it can be relinked to other versions of the LGPL part |
I dug up John's result for World when he fixed it to run Fibonacci: | |
I fixed the compile bug in World, so Kaj's Fibonacci test now takes 8.7s to run in World on my machine. R2 takes 17s and C less than 1s. | |
Those results are quite similar to Red's current performance | |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4262] | Is World being compiled? |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4263] | Yes |
Arnold 22-Nov-2012 [4264] | I understand that the 2 times faster than R3 includes the compile of the Fibonacci program? No the performance of the Red program is a bit dissappointing at a first glance for the programsource is not very different from that in Red/System? |
Henrik 22-Nov-2012 [4265] | Similarity between the two is not so easily related, as Red is more dynamic than Red/System. |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4266] | the performance of the Red program is a bit dissappointing Maybe I should have kept Red project secret until v1.0 to avoid "deceiving" people who thinks that any v0.x version should be equal to a v1.0...;-) |
Arnold 22-Nov-2012 [4267] | Well the compile is not a simple 1-to-1 translation. I am glad you did not keep it a secret, I enjoy seeing the developments. And it IS already faster then R3! :D |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4268] | The speed difference with R3 is not a constant, the more code you put in the loop, the bigger the speed difference. |
Jerry 22-Nov-2012 [4269] | Doc, can you make both MOLD and LOAD support /BINARY refinement to input/output Redbin format? |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4270x2] | Arnold, the time does not include the compilation. That's a one-time operation, so it would be unusual to include it |
For World, it does include the compilation, because its operation mimics an interpreter | |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4272] | AFAIK, World compiles to bytecode, then runs the bytecode in an interpreter. |
Kaj 22-Nov-2012 [4273] | Yes, rather different model |
DocKimbel 22-Nov-2012 [4274] | Jerry: it's a bit premature, but yes, that should be the way to create and consume redbin data. You can also add SAVE to that list. |
Pekr 22-Nov-2012 [4275] | I gave the topic of the "speed" more thoughts, and though I am very uneducated in lower level internals and language designs, I think that I might have more understanding, why I can't think about Red being just a compiler to Red/System in a 1:1 manner. In such a case, Red would not be needed. What needs to be included in the final exe is kind of "engine", supporting stuff like GC, all the dynamic things, type checking engine, etc etc. When I ask myself, if I am willing to exchange dynamic stuff for speed, I say - no, at least not necessarily. It was just that I got trapped by first R/S performance tests, and thinking that if Red compile, it has to be almost that fast too. As for waiting for 1.x and possible optimisations - I don't believe optimisations can change things drastically, at least non in order of a magnitude. But - we will see. |
PeterWood 23-Nov-2012 [4276] | Personally, I feel that Google's V8 & Apple's Nitro give orders of magnitude speed improvements over early JavaScript Compilers. |
Pekr 23-Nov-2012 [4277] | Peter - in the case of JS engines - is that only about the compilers, or also about an overal architecture change? |
DocKimbel 23-Nov-2012 [4278] | Pekr: there are several layers at which optimizations can be applied. With an optimizing Red/System compiler, you'll already get an overall x2-4 boost. Then optimizations at Red level can bring us another boost (runtime code can be optimized, compilation output can be optimized to be closer to 1:1 with Red/System, when possible). The end result should give us, on average, a x10-20 boost over R3. I am pretty confident that this can be achieved, given the current results. |
Pekr 23-Nov-2012 [4279] | Will also "self-hosting" - rewrite of Red/System in Red, help too in that regard? Or is that unrelated? |
DocKimbel 23-Nov-2012 [4280x3] | Not really on the run-time performance, it will boost compilation time only. The main motivation for being self-host is the JIT-compiler (we need to embed the target compiler in Red runtime). |
Today's new features: - FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIRTH and LAST functions added. - Paren! datatype added. - Compilation of parens expressions now supported. | |
You should now feel a bit more "at home" with Red. ;-) | |
Henrik 23-Nov-2012 [4283] | SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH and NINTH also exist in REBOL. :-) |
older newer | first last |