World: r3wp

Maxim - whatever, but my undestanding is, that Carl really does not 
want all your technology. Start a dialect - start closed group of 
few named persons and at least outline solution - publish agreed 
or problematic bullets .... the rest will add opinion ... meet once 
again, close design doc, ---> implement

We can even come-up with main question to adress ...

that's Gabriele's POV, Carl did tell me "Tell me what you would need 
changed in R3 to allow DF natively"

so he is not specifically against the idea.

that will not take much time, and Gabriele might feel safe, that 
his implementation or proposal adresses most of wishes ...

I even said to all there that I share their angst WRT DF

(DF - DataFlow)

I fear that noone will understand deep DF thoughts, and that novices 
extending GUI might feel once again lost, like they were when looking 
at VID internals for the first time :-)

hum, I am an expert at VID... I have rewrote the wake event from 
scratch, I don't use ANY of the popup code for modal windows, etc 
and I'm still mystified by how VID's design came to be  ;-)

rememeber that I'm not trying to push DF into people throaths.  I 
know how its disruptive... its not just a cool thing, its another 
paradigm... its changes how you structure your applications.

but I think that DF used through a dialect is actually VERY simple. 
 my liquidGL demo show how simple it can become.  my DF view engine 
for elixir is another example at how the higher-levels can become 
simplified by adding a little bit of in-between stuff.

but when you see how it scales and how easily it can tackle the most 
complicated tasks, then it starts actually being much more simple 
than coding all the stuff by hand... that is the problem.

Max, do you remember what Carl said about Smalltalk?

I've faced the  same problem within the Visual FX industry where 
dataflow now has a solid grasp in the field.


when you want to do simple stuff, its often more complicated to use 
dataflow... but the moment you start building complex scenes... without 
dataflow... you might as well paint your movie using frame by frame 
oil paints  ;-)

yes, and its part of the angst.

I also have my issues with small talk.

Gabriele, it's probably a matter of:

- What will he trust us to do?

- Does he have specific things that he would like to see done with 
R3?

- Does he expect that it has to be paid work, or voluntary work? 
Because I think he would easily be able to find volunteers as long 
as projects are small, focused and beneficial to as many R3 users 
as possible.


For example does he plan to build his own IDE for R3? Does he plan 
to make R3 run natively on PCs himself or Amigas or Macs? Because 
if we can get a straight "no" or "yes", we could act accordingly.

there are many ways to position DF.

but small talk is also OOP.  liquid isn't.

it could have, but I realised in the end its simpler and much easier 
to "get"  its like functions upside down.

but anhow, we are straying off the target...   do you know why Carl 
is in such a rush to have view done for june 30th?

are there contractuals, VCs, clients like AMD waiting on it, etc?

maybe MS is :-)

because there are things that are going to be built on R3

I am sure none in the community really expects view for a while...

eg. AltME 3

well, actually I think it is good RT wants to release it ASAP.

yes, but that's how VID got done.

:-(

PITL usually implies a bit more mature design process, than, lets 
scramble something ASAP... quick throw it out the door ;-)

I fear just one thing - that if new VID is not conceptually sufficient, 
new stuff gets build upon it, and then we will be reluctant to changes 
because of compatibility problems.

It's never been said anywhere, if the june/july release will be alpha, 
beta or final 3.0 version (and I don't expect the later), so I'm 
not afraid that some early prototype of new VID that will be released, 
will be also the final version. R3 final may come later enough to 
fix those problems.

anyhow... I'll come back later... I've got to work...  bye everyone.

max, petr, all your comments so far can be summarized as, you don't 
trust me and Carl with coming with a good enough design. Can I tell 
this to Carl?

Gabriele - well, whatever. That is the most "stupid" summary you 
could put on the table.

its not a question of trust, Gabriele.

so you trust me and Carl but you fear the design will be bad?

Gabriele I think that he's more afraid that he (or anybody else) 
cannot comment your and Carl's design. I think he just wants that 
whater you come up with won't be final, but will be open to suggestions 
from community.

Well, you can raise such summary against me, as I know others "talk 
is cheap" arguments, and I rarely produce any code anymore, but that 
just shows your disrespect to Henrik's and other's concerns ...

whater=whatever

and changes, real open changes.

I am off from the discussion, that does not make sense to me anymore 
...

hehe pekr just tilted  ;-)

Calm down Pkr :)

Rebolek, this started with me saying that I wanted to have more people 
to comment on VID

I am calm enough I think.

petr, ok, i'm not sure how i can summarize the above.

Gabriele, I hope you don't think that we think you can't build a 
proper system.

i think both of you said that you fear that the design will be rushed 
and not good enough.

I've said it above, its not "good" that I want.  its "open", "extensible", 
and I mean that from the inside.