World: r3wp

(one in AGG and one in OpenGL, to compare them)

that is in R3.

part of what I am hoping will be possible anyways.

I've been interested in your Liquid developments. Can it handle non-graphical 
data flow?

liquid is not graphical.   elixir is an attempt at adding a high-level 
editor to liquid, but its actually adding some limitations to what 
can be done with nodes, in order to add structure and reloadability.

but in reality, elixir is not really a *liquid* graph editor.  its 
a graph editor which *USES* liquid.

Can you map nodes to physical world objects?

hum... move to !liquid group?

I don't like how RT will cook new VID behind close doors, period.

That was the whole RAMBO group chat made short :-) Now the longer 
version ....

Gabriele - I EXACTLY expected, you will mention 1.3 open project. 
And I can tell you, why it particularly failed. Not that group could 
not come to some consensus, but also because of Carl himself. Because 
- Carl disappeared from IOS for nearly 3 months, and it was frustrating 
... no reactions to private messages etc. That is not how things 
should work.

And hence - I will never take ANY position, if things are not outlined 
the way I need them to be ... one of the most important thing is 
- communication channel.

Pekr;  The User Group will follow Bob's Rules.  The name is Item 
1 on the agenda.

Open for debate and then (a possibly unfortunate side effect of democracy) 
the vote

of the assembly is the final word.  I'm suggesting [RIG], but lots 
of names will hit the 
floor before the vote.  :)

But - 1.3 project was about concrete implementation ... we wer loosing 
time with things like arguing over button's border thickness etc., 
not starting with bigger picture. But - for new View, there was promissed 
to be SMALL group (so small, that it fits Carl's idea of closed team 
working on new stuff), which will create bigger picture.

but what I can see is, that you have your own ideas of how to cook 
new VID, and I suspect you will do it, propose it, and let us stay 
in the strange position of "take it, or go away".

I repeatedly asked here, if such group works in other altme Worlds, 
etc., and was assured, that once there is a time, it will be formed. 
And I could also see, that guys as Henrik, Anton, would very much 
appreciate being in such group.

As for me, I don't need to, as far as Henrik assured me, that fundamental 
UI things like visual focus representation, proper tabbing, accelerator 
keys, etc., are being cared for ....

btiffin - does it need to be three letter acronym? :-) and btw - 
we should also follow the praxe, which means - maybe such a thing 
needs some spontaneous way to form itself. Currently we are few, 
and we kind of for user group here on altme, working closer together. 
I will reread your post towards the topic, to find out what is the 
purpose of the initiative ...

Nope on the TLA.  R-Space will work.  It'll be a free vote.  But 
it'll have to formal for 
authority

. I'll look into praxe.  Bob's Rules are also on the agenda.  A 100 
year old

set of rules will need to be updated for the Internet, global nature 
of the debates that
will ensue.

what is Bob's Rules? :-)

ok, post me privately some links etc., so I could look at some things 
at the end of the weekend

Sorry, Bob's rules are my take on Robert's Rules of Order.  Links 
coming...

Petr, Carl does not believe in design by committee. (neither do I, 
actually). So a design group for VID won't happen. But, this does 
not mean that feedback is ignored, or that you just take it or go 
away.

about 1.3 project - exactly, so why do the same thing? you can say 
it was Carl's fault, Carl can say it was the community's fault, but 
the result is that the project did not end up in a view 1.3 release.

do we want to end up without a vid 3 release? i don't think so, so 
Carl's fault or not, we just make it happen his way.

RIG - how about REB? Rebol excited/extending/ebetterword buddies?^^

R-Types

Gabriele - sorry, but it seems to me, that your pov is misleading, 
because you try to base it on incorrect presumption. There were some 
rules set. The rules were - Carl decides, I coordinate, write down. 
Sorry, but if someone disappears for 2 - 3 months, then morale of 
group can't be kept high. I am not blaming Carl for anything here, 
that was not my point, but I have to point to the reason of failure 
...

in fact, "design by steering commitee" is kind of broken record from 
RT's side. It would be better to admit, that someone is not used 
to work in real team. That is still fact, but it should be admited, 
or false presumptions are accepted then ...

the truth is, that it si you, who started to talk about commiteee. 
And it is not imo fair to this group, because it was RT, who first 
outlined VID 2 group, as closed group of VERY FEW developers. And 
some of us, remembering Henrik, Anton, expressed their will to accept 
such group invitation ...

so, do you call 3 - 5 ppl group to be a commitee? Besides that, the 
intention of the group was planned just to outline what new VID should 
be, actual implementation could be done by even less ppl.

What I actually see is you collecting ideas, e.g. from Maxim, discussing 
some things, but admitting you will choose only some parts of eventual 
data-flow aproach, maybe without understanding whole Maxim's engine 
purpose? I don't really mind new VID being your or Carl's only decision, 
but what I would regard as being fair is - create some document about 
planned architecture, and let it run via 1 or 2 round of comments 
here. Actually, you prepared your original ideas in such form too 
IIRC.

... because, I would not like to see following happen - you design 
some quick solution, which will not cover past VID missing part, 
which will not be easilly addable, and surely you will not feel comfort, 
if ppl will complain. We were there, and the response was - well, 
VID was written in about a week, and why you don't write your own 
one GUI engine upon View?

well, re-reading my posts - it can sound quite assertive, while I 
don't regard it being so. In fact I try to voice my opinion loudly, 
to prevent some past mistakes.

why you don't write your own one GUI engine upon View?

 ... a valid question, considering a "one size fits all" GUI is hard, 
 if not impossible, to do. I think [small] domain-specific GUI's built 
 on View are the way to go.

Ashley, I might know what you mean, but there should be one more 
complete/robust one, which will serve for "general" app development 
- simply put - most common styles behaving in OS compatible way, 
so that developer might feel safe to push rebol based apps around. 
Of course I can imagine specialised dialected UIs for presentations, 
multimedia, etc.

RT outlined VID 2 group - frankly I have never heard of such a thing 
from Carl.

well, who started the GUI Design group?

i started to talk of committee - no, and i'm sorry if i was not clear. 
we need help with the implementation, and we surely need feedback 
with the design (although, i think that we got quite a lot of feedback 
on this in the past few years, and from rebgui, liquidgl, and so 
on), but i don't think i ever side that design decisions should go 
thru a voting process or something like that. design decisions come 
from carl. i can show him my, or anyone else ideas, and he will say 
yes or no (i'm simplifying but you get the idea). showing him 100 
different ideas is not going to work (we must get to something in 
much less than a month)

hum, the "much less than a month" seems quite a bad idea in all ways 
I can approach it.

dataflow: me, carl, richard, nenad, max etc were sitting discussing 
this at the devcon, and nenad asked - i don't see what this is good 
for in practice. carl said, i'd just like the gui part of the thing 
- connecting widgets, so how big is liquid? max said at least 20k, 
to which carl said "too big".

if its going to take a year or two to properly adapt just a few small 
high-level things in the language... I don't see why redesiging view 
should be done in less than a month.

 I think [small] domain-specific GUI's built on View are the way to 
 go.

 -- I agree 100%. Better for RT to give us good docs on how to build 
 those, than trying to build them all in house.


but there should be one more complete/robust one, which will serve 
for 

general" app development" -- There is. Today it's called VID. It's 
not perfect, can be very limiting, and has big holes (e.g. no focus), 
but it's there.


I think the point Gabriele made--that this is how Carl works, and 
we have to live with it--is very important. That's not an easy thing 
to do, but I think getting too many people involved will not work. 
I hope there is a small team of technical people, and that someone 
makes note of what has been requested. I don't expect perfection, 
but I don't think RT will ignore what has been said in the past either.

so, i've looked into the liquid source, i've looked into what max's 
demos etc., and i still can't find an example where we need 20k of 
code. i can do all of that in 2k of code (actually zero, since i 
already want it to be all event based). so, i'm not making a final 
decision here, but i expect carl to chose 0kb over 20kb, functionality 
being the same from his pov (connecting widgets automatically).

but R3 is about finally allowing REBOL to DO real stuff.

Carl talks a lot about programming the large. I hope this aspect 
fits with the GUI as well, so if we can't get a complete GUI, at 
least give us the solid foundation to build it ourselves.

without that nagging bad taste in your mouth every time you try to 
do something where you realise you have to "again" reimplement half 
of what you are working on before even starting.

Agreed Henrik. That is my hope as well.

there are no Dataflow demos out yet.

liquid is not related to GUIs.