World: r3wp
[World] For discussion of World language
older newer | first last |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [616x2] | I have my hands full now, and I make really good progress. When we're around version 1 (or if I don't make more progress), it would make much more sense to think about open source. And as I've said, it may also make really good sense to open source parts along the way. I have considered library.c and library.h, which holds the C code for library! and routine!. That almost makes sense now. When I've implemented error! correctly (working on it), it really makes sense. You have only been able to run World for 5 days. Patience! :) |
Disadvantages: me loosing focus and loosing time, when having to answer all kinds of questions and approve new developments. The horror of World being fragmented to 100 versions, where none of them are compatible. You wouldn't like that! I make sure, that doesn't happen. You need surplus of time and resources to open source things like this, if you wanna be sure, it doesn't run off rails. Look at how many ways, you can do any single thing in Linux. It's way too fragmented in most areas. | |
Kaj 9-Dec-2011 [618] | Of course, there are now six in-development ways to write a program in a REBOL like language, half of which are closed source |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [619] | So haft are open. Do you have a general view, how things are going with the different languages? |
Kaj 9-Dec-2011 [620] | Yes, efforts are quite fragmented over all these projects. Syllable is even still using a seventh language because I can't keep up |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [621x2] | It probably doesn't make sense to join forces of all these languages, because they're so different in goal/implementation/design. |
And it may make sense to share code in some areas. | |
Kaj 9-Dec-2011 [623] | It's actually a lot like Linux. Every distro has something you need, but none of them has everything you need. If I want to build the Russian Syllable website, I can only use R3. If I need system integration and speed, I can only use Red. If I need to write web apps, only Topaz targets that. If I need open source, I can only use half of them. If I need dynamic binding, I can only use the interpreters. If I need infix operators, I can't use Boron, although I could use its predecessor. Etcetera ad nauseum |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [624] | I feel, trying to do everything has high possibility of failure. But being able to integrate with everything could be the way to be able to do everything. |
Kaj 9-Dec-2011 [625x2] | I feel not trying to do everything equals failure from the start. A language is supposed to cover everything |
This is the main reason REBOL has slided for a decade | |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [627] | But doesn't "trying to do everything" mean, it becomes bloated and complex? |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [628] | Jack of all trades, master of none. |
Kaj 9-Dec-2011 [629] | REBOL started out as a Swiss army knife, and was it bloated and complex? |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [630] | But still, I strongly believe in the value of "general purpose language", though I wouldn't go as far as saying that one is supposed to cover "everything". |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [631] | well, you didn't have direct support for things like Soap in REBOL, which I think is a good thing. Being able to integrate with stuff, that can do Soap is ok. |
Kaj 9-Dec-2011 [632x2] | Red solves it by covering everything with two |
REBOL was always meant to straddle everything with domain specific dialects | |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [634] | Andreas, I've thought some more about the need for a compile state reset. Have you? |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [635x2] | Not much, no. But that also means I haven't yet changed my mind and still believe we need one :) |
("Domain specific dialect" is just another label for "yet another purpose-built language".) | |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [637x2] | :) I see it as: I have compiled function, I would like to change -> I make changes -> I want the new version to run With compile reset, that can be cone at any point between first run and second. Doing it with COMPILE, it needs to be done right before 2nd run. But isn't that good enough? Or can we come up with situations, where it isn't? |
cone = done | |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [639] | Well, just remember the example we had. |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [640] | This: c: copy [] f: func [x] [x] append c [f 10 20] ;; recompiling c here, do c would == 20 f: func [x y] [x * y] ;; recompiling c here, do c would == 200 |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [641x4] | I have a compiled block which I need to change. I make changes. In some cases, compilation state is automatically reset (INSERT), in other cases it is not. |
If I, as a writer of some code-modifying helper function want to also provide the behaviour of INSERT, I can't. | |
Doing it with compile, the recompilation is forced to happen right after the modification. | |
If we had a compile reset, we could postpone the recompilation until the next evaluation. | |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [645] | Right, good explanation. Would a compile/reset be an idea? It doesn't compile, just reset. |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [646] | Yeah, sounds perfect. |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [647x2] | as a refinement, I mean |
ok, consider it done | |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [649] | Nice, but no hurry :) |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [650] | It's maybe 5 lines of C code. :) |
Andreas 9-Dec-2011 [651] | Sure :) |
Geomol 9-Dec-2011 [652x2] | Ah, I would like to do compile/reset/at too, so it's maybe a little. |
About instructions being 256 bit, half can be used to hold constants of the types: - complex! : 2 double - range! : 2 64-bit int (also pair! in the future) - tuple! : 14 bytes + length (could be 15 bytes) - date! : 128-bit in all The rest is used for opcode, type of constant and a register offset. I put a 32-bit filler in, when going from 32- to 64-bit to reach a 64-bit boundary. So it should be possible to go down to 192-bit instructions without loosing functionality. To reach 128-bit instructions, the above constants needs to be spread over two instructions, which will hit performance. But it's important to notice, there is room for improvements here. It hasn't been important for me to uptimize in this area yet, so that's why it is like this for now, but that time will come. | |
Geomol 10-Dec-2011 [654x3] | On the other hand, on a 64-bit system with 64-bit pointers, compiler optimisation of code such as: 0 GET_TVALUE 0 10031dff0 0 GET_TVALUE 1 100150fa0 0 ADD 0 0 1 0 SET_TVALUE 10016f6f0 0 will require 192 bit just for the 3 pointers, which will mean 256-bit instructions (with opcode), if the code can be optimized into 1 instruction. Optimizing four 128 bit inst into one 256 bit inst will halve the memory required. I haven't dug enough into optimisation in World to say, if it's possible. |
The above VM asm is produced by code such as: a: b + c | |
World should accept REBOL [] as header to run R2, R3 scripts through it without editing these. World can already run scripts without header, so it's possible to run REBOL scripts without editing them by first defining REBOL as: REBOL: none or something similar. | |
BrianH 10-Dec-2011 [657x5] | You can write this and it will work in R2 and R3, because the stuff before the header will be ignored: world [] rebol: none rebol [] |
I wish you luck with World. It may be a bit difficult for me to use it though, because of the ASCII strings. Any language that isn't built from scratch with Unicode strings, instead having them retrofitted later when the inevitible need to support users outside the the English-speaking world, will have a great deal of problems. Python 3 is just the latest example of the problems with not having a well-thought-through Unicode string model. One of the best parts of R3 is how well we handled the Unicode transition. | |
I even have difficulty using R2 now because of how it can't really support nvarchar columns accessed through ODBC, a daily problem for me. | |
Any language that can do aliasing between the string and binary types, rather than requiring conversion, won't work. | |
Fortunately, it's not too late to fix this in World :) | |
Geomol 11-Dec-2011 [662x4] | My view is, implementing unicode everywhere will add to unnecesssary complexity. Each such level of complexity is a sure step to downfall. My first rule of development is simplicity, then performance, then low footprint, then maybe features. Words in World can hold 7-bit ASCII. Chars and strings can hold 8-bit characters. That's the level of simplicity, I aim at. I will have to deal with unicode, of course, and I'll do that, when World is a bit more mature. There could be a unicode! datatype. |
A word about license, since that has been brought up in different groups. The current license for World is simple: Alpha release. For testing only. Use at your own risk. Do not distribute. There is a LICENSE function to show that. World is currently an alpha version for testing. When World moves to beta stage, I have to figure out a proper license. (I think, that's in the Q&A too.) | |
New release at https://github.com/Geomol/World | |
- Added /reset to COMPILE - Implemented error system. Error system include: system/standard/error system/standard/errors system/state/last-error Better error reporting - Added sys-utils/print-last-error | |
older newer | first last |