Rebol for .NET
[1/8] from: gchillemi:aliceposta:it at: 12-May-2004 12:46
Do you think that a REBOL for .NET would be possible ? It will surely open
the door to any hardware which has a .NET framework available !
Giuseppe
[2/8] from: karim:elfounas:easybraine at: 12-May-2004 18:26
The only hardware that run .NET is a PCx86 with Windows and, soon in the future, a Linux
via Mono.
A .Net interpreter/compiler of Rebol language will be less platform independent than
the current one. It will also slow
down the execution speed.
I do not understand why it could be usefull as it. But maybe, a new set of instruction
for interoperability could be
interesting if it give more things than the usual dll access of view/pro and view/command.
We will also lose the fast deployment of the actual less-than-1Meg rebol/view executable.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]] De la part de Giuseppe Chillemi
Envoyé : mercredi 12 mai 2004 12:47
À : [rebol-list--rebol--com]
Objet : [REBOL] Rebol for .NET
Do you think that a REBOL for .NET would be possible ? It will surely open the door to
any hardware which has a .NET
framework available !
Giuseppe
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [rebol-request--rebol--com] with unsubscribe
as the subject.
[3/8] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 12-May-2004 11:27
Hi Giuseppe,
GC> Do you think that a REBOL for .NET would be possible ? It will
GC> surely open the door to any hardware which has a .NET framework
GC> available !
It's very unlikely. .NET compiles down to an internal IL (Intermediate
Language) to run on their VM; REBOL is purely interpreted. RT has
mentioned in the past that it would be possible to create a compiler
for a subset of REBOL (or maybe the whole language, not sure), but you
would lose the dynamic aspect of REBOL.
I think I'd rather have a native code compiler myself, and a good
infrastructure for building REBOL apps that can talk to each other,
and apps built in other languages.
-- Gregg
[4/8] from: pwawood:mango:my at: 13-May-2004 7:53
Isn't the real question about REBOL and .net as to when (rather than
if) View/Pro.net will provide access to .net frameworks and the like?
Peter
On Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 01:27 Asia/Kuala_Lumpur, Gregg Irwin
wrote:
[5/8] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 12-May-2004 19:08
Hi Peter,
PWW> Isn't the real question about REBOL and .net as to when (rather than
PWW> if) View/Pro.net will provide access to .net frameworks and the like?
I wouldn't think so, but I don't profess to know much. :) Universal
interop mechanisms seem a better route for REBOL than more platform
specific ties. Give me an easy, open, way to talk with .NET apps and
I'll just write pieces in the most appropriate tool.
-- Gregg
[6/8] from: gchillemi:aliceposta:it at: 14-May-2004 9:57
Karim, I do not agree !
Using the .NET framework would open the opportunity to run an
application on every kind of hardware supported by the framework.
.NET runs on every Windows Desktop (XP, ME, 2000 ...) but it exists
for Windows Mobile, Windows CE .NET devices and SmartPhones (althought in a
reduced form). As employer of a company which develops for the mobile market
I see how important is to embrace this market NOW. Mobile will have 3 digits
expansion ratio each year in the following years.
.NET is an the opportunity to remove many of the differences that
cost a lot to companies that are implementing software solutions for
different hardware platforms. Rebol Technologies would have the benefit of
moving part of the development of Rebol over the companies which take care
of maintaining the compatibility of the framework on different hardware. You
can see by yourself how important is for everyone to focus on its core
business.
When I read on the Rebol FAQ that CE compatibility needs a financer,
a sponsor I realize that my nice Rebol/View Pro is far from my reference
market and far from the reference market of many companies. However I admit
that technologies changes really often and we could have a Windows XP
powered smartphone in a couple of years or a linux computer system for our
cars. Until then I remain of my opinion that .NET is one of the solutions
that guarantees the wider hardware base at the least cost.
Giuseppe
PS: A last note: slowdown is not an issue for a lot of Rebol applications
which idle waiting for an input for the most of time...
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]] Per conto di
Karim El Founas
Inviato: mercoledì 12 maggio 2004 18.27
A: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
Oggetto: [REBOL] RE : Rebol for .NET
The only hardware that run .NET is a PCx86 with Windows and, soon in the
future, a Linux via Mono.
A .Net interpreter/compiler of Rebol language will be less platform
independent than the current one. It will also slow
down the execution speed.
I do not understand why it could be usefull as it. But maybe, a new set of
instruction for interoperability could be
interesting if it give more things than the usual dll access of view/pro and
view/command.
We will also lose the fast deployment of the actual less-than-1Meg
rebol/view executable.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]] De la part de
Giuseppe Chillemi
Envoyé : mercredi 12 mai 2004 12:47
À : [rebol-list--rebol--com]
Objet : [REBOL] Rebol for .NET
Do you think that a REBOL for .NET would be possible ? It will surely open
the door to any hardware which has a .NET
framework available !
Giuseppe
[7/8] from: karim::elfounas::easybraine::com at: 14-May-2004 17:37
Hello Giuseppe,
About the oppurtunity to use rebol application on Windows CE and Smartphone you're right.
I didn't think about
it in my response. I was also disappointed by he lack of good mobile platform support
with Rebol. There are no PalmOS
support even with the two new PalmOS releases wich are very powerfull.
And, in this kind of project, the developper needs good librairies to use efficiently
the particular things of these
plaforms (Persistence in memory, connectivity, specific sounds and graphics,...)
About running Rebol on Windows (with .Net) or Linux (with Mono), I still think the benefit
will be smaller. But good
librairies (in Rebol) to connect a Rebol script to usefull .Net dll or applications could
be interresting.
About the speed problem, I think that sometimes it can be important. I'm writting an
client-server + SQL DB application
in Rebol and the speed is important in my case (so many users). In this application,
sometimes Rebol run faster than
equivalent Java or Coldfusion routines. Even the SQL connexion (DocKimbel MySQL drive)
is sometimes more efficient!
CU
Karim.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]] De la part de Giuseppe Chillemi
Envoyé : vendredi 14 mai 2004 9:58
À : [rebol-list--rebol--com]
Objet : [REBOL] RE : Rebol for .NET
Karim, I do not agree !
Using the .NET framework would open the opportunity to run an application on every kind
of hardware supported by
the framework.
.NET runs on every Windows Desktop (XP, ME, 2000 ...) but it exists for Windows Mobile,
Windows CE .NET devices
and SmartPhones (althought in a reduced form). As employer of a company which develops
for the mobile market I see how
important is to embrace this market NOW. Mobile will have 3 digits expansion ratio each
year in the following years.
.NET is an the opportunity to remove many of the differences that cost a lot to companies
that are implementing
software solutions for different hardware platforms. Rebol Technologies would have the
benefit of moving part of the
development of Rebol over the companies which take care of maintaining the compatibility
of the framework on different
hardware. You can see by yourself how important is for everyone to focus on its core
business.
When I read on the Rebol FAQ that CE compatibility needs a financer, a sponsor I realize
that my nice Rebol/View
Pro is far from my reference market and far from the reference market of many companies.
However I admit that
technologies changes really often and we could have a Windows XP powered smartphone in
a couple of years or a linux
computer system for our cars. Until then I remain of my opinion that .NET is one of the
solutions that guarantees the
wider hardware base at the least cost.
Giuseppe
PS: A last note: slowdown is not an issue for a lot of Rebol applications which idle
waiting for an input for the most
of time...
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]] Per conto di Karim El Founas
Inviato: mercoledì 12 maggio 2004 18.27
A: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
Oggetto: [REBOL] RE : Rebol for .NET
The only hardware that run .NET is a PCx86 with Windows and, soon in the future, a Linux
via Mono.
A .Net interpreter/compiler of Rebol language will be less platform independent than
the current one. It will also slow
down the execution speed.
I do not understand why it could be usefull as it. But maybe, a new set of instruction
for interoperability could be
interesting if it give more things than the usual dll access of view/pro and view/command.
We will also lose the fast deployment of the actual less-than-1Meg rebol/view executable.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]] De la part de Giuseppe Chillemi
Envoyé : mercredi 12 mai
2004 12:47 À : [rebol-list--rebol--com] Objet : [REBOL] Rebol for .NET
Do you think that a REBOL for .NET would be possible ? It will surely open the door to
any hardware which has a .NET
framework available !
Giuseppe
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [rebol-request--rebol--com] with unsubscribe
as the subject.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [rebol-request--rebol--com] with unsubscribe
as the subject.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [rebol-request--rebol--com] with unsubscribe
as the subject.
[8/8] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 14-May-2004 10:29
Karim et al
KEF> ...even with the two new PalmOS releases wich are very powerfull.
I think RT has said in the past that the limitation on Palm OS was the
memory space an app could use. If the newer versions remove that
limitation, then we need to get RT the info they need to reevaluate
the platform. Do you have any links or info handy that we could send
them?
-- Gregg