World: r3wp

Question on alternate UI options, specifically ChUI (terminal style) 
or mobile options would be of interest to me.  Is anything planned 
or expected that would apply to those areas of UI implementation?

it's not planned right now, unless someone steps in and does it, 
but it requires VID3 to be about done, before that can happen. The 
focus is currently on a scalable DRAW based user interface.

but it would be fun to do a low-color, low-res VID3 GUI. :-)

Thanks Henrik, some comment recently made me wonder if I had missed 
something on that front.  I like scalable DRAW based as an option 
too. *smile*

IMHO, this is the right way to go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Language_Runtime
My hope is that REBOL3 will be implemented over this framework.

So do I, though not as the main implementation.

Why this one? Aren't there also other VMs, which could be interesting? 
LLVM, Parrot?

Ah, .Net related ... so integration ... well, we might need to support 
that one, of course if it allows us to interface .Net, other than 
that there is no sense .

prot-http.r should be in devbase. also... we'll eventually publish 
the docs.

That's why I like it, Pekr. It seems to me to be the best way to 
integrate .NET with REBOL using fully managed code.

Aside from that though, not much point. Even if you are talking about 
the Silverlight or Compact runtimes, it's still much larger than 
REBOL on its own engine. As for speed, who knows; a lot of smart 
people are working on the DLR.

As for REBOL3 on .net ported on the DLR I think of having available 
all the libraries, classes, and object of the framework and from 
other languages.

This will bring much attention to REBOL, a wider odience, a vast 
amount of material avaiable, the opportunity to write bigger applications. 
It is a whole new word that opens. Also, REBOLERs using of the Microsoft 
platform will migrate to the "pure" REBOL when needed.
I  consider this step a winning move from every side of the view.

Also, as other languages are ported to JAVA a porting of REBOL on 
it would open a lot of opportunities from this other side too. Look 
at this article for an overview of JRuby: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-2006/jw-0717-ruby.html

Things such as JRuby and IronPython are independent implementations, 
so you are free to reimplement REBOL in Java and .Net...

Kaj, having the idea does not mean I am able to implement it !

Well, that was really my point. It may sound blunt, but having an 
idea does not mean that others have time to implement it

But at the same time this does not mean it is a bad idea ;-)

Tell me about it. I've been wanting to integrate REBOL with .NET 
since before the DLR came out, but no time yet :(

Brian, lets hope that REBOL Tech will have a project to port it on 
.NET using DLR. It would open to us a lot of doors. The whole microsoft 
.NET world is full of object and libraries which would be fantastic 
for us.

And, as written, even the pure REBOL would gain a consistent crowd 
of programmers enlarging by a magnitude its user base.

Somehow, I don't think porting to .NET and the DLR will be high on 
RT's priority list.

Hope is the last thing that dies....

Gregg, what you think about opening to the .NET world ?

Giuseppe - I think that any kind of possible integration has to be 
a good thing, no? :-)

If you want R3 on the DLR, pay someone qualified to implement it. 
It doesn't have to be RT - R3 is a community project.

Wait until the R3 Unicode semantics are settled though (real soon 
now).

first native C/C++ header import functions
to easy unlock the full power of fast, stable C/C++ lib's
second unstable, bloated COM support if really
necessary ;-)

If you are talking about Windows, you have to assume that C/C++ libs 
are unstable too, and that you can't do anything without COM.

On Vista you have to assume that there is a lot you can't do without 
.NET support - many of the new APIs are .NET-based.

C/C++ doesn't mean fast either - it depends on the algorithms.

for me it is enough if "nearly all" C libs have been
more stable and faster than COM container I have ever
used. if you are happy with COM, use it! I prefer C/C++
lib's if possible. at least even TASM is unstable and slow 
if your design is poor but this is splitting hairs...

The problem I have is that what I need to do with Windows has only 
COM APIs, or in some cases .NET. Unstable beats unavailable.

It depends on what RT's goal is, who has the time and skills to do 
things, and what's most important. I would like to  see time spent 
on an official systems for packaging, building, IPC, an IDE and other 
tools, a solid OSX build, etc., rather than a .NET/DLR port.

.NET sucks (from what I can see), but boy, what a market... (hopefully 
that one sentence sums it all up).

Community project, remember. Who said RT had to do it?

If RT's goal is to lure Windows programmers, particularly corporate 
ones, they need to support COM, .NET, and big DB connections (with 
good examples).

I don't know that it's their goal though.

In fact, while attempting to convince somoene to use REBOL over .NET, 
I really learned how little .NET actually does for you as  web developer. 
(I can't speak to using .NET for something else).

Reichart, having used and studied .NET extensively, I can concur 
that it sucks. It just sucks less than its competition.

REBOL is not its competition btw - Java and COM are.

Hi Guy's - .NET was M$ attempt to solve dllhell. Also to be a platfrom 
for their own languages.

And move away from the 1980's C API. :-)

Yep, some of their own dll's mixed old C with newer c++ and 16/32 
bit code which had to be thunked to work

Also, MS adopted .NET for the same reason Apple adopted LLVM: cross-hardware 
compatibility.

One way to see it is to ask yourself, what you value most: earning 
money or doing something right. Sometimes it's possible to do it 
right AND earn a lot at the same time. Many years ago, I found out, 
that I enjoy most doing things right, so that's my priority one.

I enjoy doing things right too, but I have a mortgage :(

A buddhist would then argue, that when you own nothing, you're not 
afraid of loosing anything, but that might be a tad too extreme. 
:-)

Try owning nothing and living through a Chicago winter :)

(I know, you can rent, but that costs money too)

Geomol, remember the L'easy campaign a few years ago about owning 
nothing and renting everything?