World: r3wp
[#Boron] Open Source REBOL Clone
older newer | first last |
Volker 13-Jul-2006 [251] | What i am curious about, how does scheme handle binding? can i bind symbols in data to contexts, and how? I like that for dialects. |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [252] | I would value Jaime's contributions highly, however, it's important that we don't fight each other by pushing different directions. |
[unknown: 9] 13-Jul-2006 [253] | Sometimes you have to take a big step back to consider the issues. Rebol exists, and works for most people given what they are trying to do. The cool thing about an open source version is that when someone comes across a problem they can fix just that problem (thus offering it back to the community). In theory this could be done in such a way that that section of Rebol runs on Orca (for example), while the rest runs on standard Rebol. O Rebol can "choose" to fix these issues (since they would be self documenting). O Orca can branch from the Rebol sheme. O New features can come into existence by committee. O Open source die-hards will step up to Rebol O Some companies are anti-open-source. Rebol then becomes their savior, and thus becomes closed version of itself. This actually seems like a win/win to me. |
Pekr 13-Jul-2006 [254x3] | yes, but maybe it would be vital, if FINALLY RT would explain a bit a plan. We saw documents about more of community involvement, also about how some parts will be opened. But what we never saw were details to such a plan. R3 is coming. My understanding is, that is should make situation much better, as what does not belong to kernel, should be kicked off from Rebol, into module/plug-in, call it whatever ... |
If we get extensible R3, who needs open source just for the sake of open source? The only part closed will be the language itself ... | |
but it HAS to work, otherwise I understand the concern of Jaime - waiting for fixes months is frustrating ... | |
Kaj 13-Jul-2006 [257] | Just don't expect me to join Google groups or anything. There are far too many disparate communication systems around. I have happily standardized on AltME |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [258] | That's alright, we moved to IRC. |
Pekr 13-Jul-2006 [259] | IRC is standard, but when altme is available, I wonder why that choice ... but hey, whatever works :-) |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [260x2] | Reichart, yes, the development of open source rebol clones may just allow Rebol to become comfortable with its closed position. |
Pekr, AltME doesn't cover all linux platforms yet, so that would limit the audience a little bit. | |
Pekr 13-Jul-2006 [262] | but R2 is already dead anyway. R3 introduces lots of new concepts, I wonder if Orca will try to adapt ... |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [263] | R2 is not dead. I am still using it ! It will be very useful for some time to come. It will take a long while for R3 to stabilise to the point at which R2 is now. |
Pekr 13-Jul-2006 [264] | I expected exactly such a reaction, just waited for it to pop up :-) I am talking about focus/orientation .... all the potential of RT goes to R3. Judge for yourself, if Orca should, and for how long, to focus on R2, respectively to add new features, before we know, what RT gives us ... |
[unknown: 9] 13-Jul-2006 [265] | I do love the dramatic statements around here sometimes... |
Henrik 13-Jul-2006 [266] | well, it's not like R2 will become utterly 100% useless, is it? There's a ton of value in R2 still. |
Pekr 13-Jul-2006 [267] | my opinion is, that Orca should stick to compatibility mode right now, before it is clear, what R3 offers on its own feature wise (tail recursion etc. discussed here), because later, if Orca now goes its own way, it may not be easily possible to get on pair with R3 compatibility wise .... |
Henrik 13-Jul-2006 [268] | also my Rebol/View hasn't stopped working since R3 was announced... |
Pekr 13-Jul-2006 [269] | I want Orca being Rebol compatible as much as possible, or it is different language then ... |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [270] | Exactly. I agree with everybody forever. |
Pekr 13-Jul-2006 [271x3] | of course, as I am not able to contribute, just regard my vote as not non important ... it is upon those who contribute to Orca ... |
Anton :-) | |
not non = not so .... | |
JaimeVargas 13-Jul-2006 [274] | Anton, I don't see contradiction between your goals and my goal. |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [275] | Sounds good, but how about this case: foreach v [1 2 3] [ ] in rebol currently returns unset! in orca returns 'v It can be argued that this is a small useful improvement that doesn't interfere with rebol code. I would prefer, however, to change it back to the rebol way because there may be times (possibly very rare) when some code relies on this behaviour and is broken by the change. How do you see this case ? |
JaimeVargas 13-Jul-2006 [276] | Reverse it you want. |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [277] | Ok, that's good. So when you want to add things to Orca, how can we manage that ? Compiler switch ? |
JaimeVargas 13-Jul-2006 [278] | Yep. There is already a compat flag. |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [279] | Kaj, and anyone else new to the discussion, I'm trying to get a consensus on the future direction of Orca. It is a divergence from Rebol, as stated on these pages: http://trac.geekisp.com/orca/wiki/OrcaProject http://trac.geekisp.com/orca/wiki/OrcaBehavior |
JaimeVargas 13-Jul-2006 [280] | Look at op.c in the src code. |
Kaj 13-Jul-2006 [281] | In Ruby it would return 3, which is actually very nice in many cases |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [282] | But I would like to steer it back to Rebol. Actually, since Orca needs a name change, it's probably better to fork and do a big name change, probably to something like OpenRebol or ORebol. What do people think about that ? |
JaimeVargas 13-Jul-2006 [283] | Anton, search from "#ifdef LANG_ORCA " if you want examples of use. |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [284x2] | (Kaj, note the body block is empty.) |
Jaime, ok.. | |
Kaj 13-Jul-2006 [286x2] | Anton, I agree with changing Orca's course to be more compatible that it is now. On the other hand, I think it would be fairly silly to specifically implement REBOL bugs, especially now that R3 is going to fix some of them |
Still, in Ruby it would return 3. :-) Which I use a lot | |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [288] | Actually, that's another issue: Do we make a separate fork for R3, (considering it may not stabilise for some time.) ? |
Kaj 13-Jul-2006 [289x2] | That seems like overkill. I say develop Orca along with R3, with the same features |
It's not like the differences are huge - one of the advantages of the high abstraction level | |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [291] | But we don't know what R3 is yet. |
Kaj 13-Jul-2006 [292x2] | We don't know what Orca's going to be, either :-) |
I think we're talking details here | |
JaimeVargas 13-Jul-2006 [294] | Anton, In order to speed coding you could just target cloning. |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [295] | I think it's wise to fork Orca, to be clear about the name and the direction it's going. |
JaimeVargas 13-Jul-2006 [296x4] | And the easiest way for that is add the missing natives and mezz. |
Anton why fork. There is nobody else developing it. | |
Once the all the natives and mezz are completed then we can talk about enhancements. | |
Like Kaj request for returning the last element. | |
Anton 13-Jul-2006 [300] | Hmm.. So you think there is lots of work that can still be done before the need to fork becomes a strong issue. |
older newer | first last |