World: r3wp

Henrik - you better hurry up with GUI, so that Amigans can have some 
useful demos :-)

We are busy going 1.0 on an application these days, so I'm not working 
very much on the GUI. I can however tell that Rebolek and Cyphre 
are hard at work. :-)

Yes, right now I'm working on simple object browser for better debugging 
of styles.

Uploaded OS X libr3.so to github.
http://www.rebol.com/r3/changes.htmlupdated

Steven, nice!

Cool collaboration on the OS X build

I'll get you updated lib for A110 for OS4.

Ha, great!

Kaj, yes, "Powered by Bolka"

Cool, now work on OS-X can continue ...

Henrik: I have a blog where I'm going to try and document my progress.. 
see http://solie.ca/

ssolie: cool :-)

yes... very :-)

ssolie - cool! Now you could update amigaworld.net R3 thread and 
post the screenshot :-) Btw - you said - "Although these images are 
quite complex they are rendered very quickly by REBOL." - I wonder 
if we have some gfx test scripts for you to try?

aren't those gfx test scripts?

I thought something like FPS measurement, or we have that (I can't 
remember the script name) CPU-REBOL cycles measurement script?

ah yes, that would be interesting to see.

the old 1000-cows script, maybe.

yes, this one is good. Dunno if it runs on latest and greatest ... 
will dig it up and test. Btw - what's the name of the Core REBOL 
CPU cycles test script? Where can it be found?

wasn't it rebol-hertz

probably on rebol.org

hmm, 1000 cows does not work here ...

This one, Petr?
    http://www.rebol.com/speed.r

not sure, maybe it is that. I do remember we each tested with our 
machines and posted here on Altme

Probably was then:
    http://www.rebol.org/aga-display-posts.r?post=r3wp166x65

Easiest way to find all the posted results:
    http://www.rebol.org/aga-search.r?q=disk/file

cool :-)

Pekr: AGG is very quick  which is why it renders so nicely but it 
is all CPU bound (no h/w accel) -- I would appreciate a benchmark 
because I think we should be compiling AGG with -O3 given it is C++ 
code heavy on templates

ssolie: here you can download simple benchmark: http://cyphre.mysteria.cz/tests/gfx-bench.r3

my result on WinXP SP3 ,Intel Pentium Mobile 4 1.8Ghz, ATI Mobility 
Radeon 7500, 1GBRAM

0:00:17.916 22.326 FPS

Win Vista, 32 bit, Dell Latitude D830, 2GB RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo 
1.8:


Script: "Host-Kit Graphics: Basic gfx benchmark" Version: 1.0.5 Date: 
none
GFX benchmark result
0:00:08.044 49.726 FPS

BTW my internal unoptimized OpenGL accelerated version on the same 
machine as above ;)

0:00:08.342 47.95 FPS

btw - I read some OS-X/Flash related discussions on OSNews, and it 
seems Adobe is being criticised for not using new API. Is that Cocoa? 
Now as we have R3 library available - will we target this environment? 
IIRC R2 did not use it?

People who criticise Adobe for not using the new API don't realize 
that it *does* use the new API now. It's just that the API was only 
released recently, and was done badly.

Done badly by Apple, not Adobe.

Then how can it be that every single other video player under OSX 
performs at least twice as good, CPU time wise, as flash?

Because they don't use the API, they use their own code.

Also, Flash sucks for reasons that go beyond video rendering. It's 
not all Apple's fault.

Then it means that R3 should use its own code as well. But I think 
it's not an easy answer. Everything I hear about the flash implementation 
on OSX is heresay.

Agreed, especially to the hearsay part.

Some say that video is based on an inefficient color conversion process. 
Others say that Flash uses a really stupid polling mechanism. I think 
there is a garbage collection issue, but that is again hearsay.

Nevertheless, I don't think R3 would have issues with this, as long 
as it's done properly.

I know that some things in the Apple APIs wrt access to the hardware 
where never opened up and could only be used by apple themselves. 
 its possible that some people figured out how to hack their way 
through this, but flash is embedded in a browser, so probably can't 
since there would be some executions conflicts between the browser 
and the plugin.   


just a guess, but when you compare flash to other adobe apps, I can't 
see why flash would be left in perpetual agony when their other software 
doesn't have these issues.  in fact, for years Adobe apps where the 
fastest ones on Apple HW.

Maxim, tried Adobe Reader or any Air apps on OSX lately? :-)

ok, Air is flash, but still...

I was referring to their "professional" apps.

I always wondered why reader was so bad on OSX.  but is it really 
need since we have the internal OSX pdf reader.

Well, there should be no problem for us yet, no? So far, R3 uses 
SW rendering, there's not much to worry about in regards to OS-X 
API, no? Later on, as we have proper codec system, or we try to accelerate 
gfx or video, it might be a different topic.

My personal opinion is that Adobe is too big now and they probably 
don't understands it's own code. Especially the one which acuired, 
like Flash from Macromedia.

Also don't forget that Adobe and Apple are not friends anymore.