World: r4wp

It would have to be something that can be processed by Red but still 
able to generate stand-alone Red/System

I would like to get rid of it, for many reasons. Firstly because 
it was not meant to be part of Red/System, but added later for practical 
needs, secondly because Red/System code could be built/composed more 
efficiently from Red.

In other words, we need some kind of Red wrapper (or maybe dialect) 
on top of Red/System to make it easier to construct programmatically.

Sounds right

I haven't had time yet to think about such replacement solution, 
so ideas are welcome.

Routine preliminary support pushed. See commit log for examples. 
The routine! type still needs to be added.

Routine! datatype added, reflection is supported.

Doc, I'm very glad to see you're still working hard on Red!  I was 
concerned that the psychological effect of everyone paying attention 
to R3 source, plus your own curiousity about it, might derail you 
for a while.  I'm still eagerly awaiting every advance you make!

Actually, I still haven't found time to read the whole R3 sources 
base. I was too busy this week designing some new parts of Red.

doc, congrats you were accepted to the dev program of Leap motion 
:-)

... and yes, please do continue with Red development, I believe that 
in the end it is good to have rebol like alternative :-)

Pekr: thanks, I hope to get the device + SDK in January. My application 
to their developer program was based on an innovative IDE for Red 
powered by Leap Motion device. ;-)

sounds cool :-) Lately I was wondering about the possible benefits 
of Red and R3. Difficult to judge, but could there be any overlapping 
ground, where twose two projects could cooperate? e.g your IDE for 
R3 to, simply a language would be a plugin, or - both projects want 
to address Android - could one bridge to JNI be used for both?

Pekr: I don't know. We'll see how things evolve in the next month. 
In order to cooperate with R3, it would be first necessary to determine 
who's really in charge of R3 or what R3 fork should Red cooperate 
with... :-)

I thought it is already coordinated here on Altme :-) Well, my typical 
what's next for Red? Objects? IO? dyn lib emmiter? Android? :-)

I'm working on objects and ports currently.

I might release some other features for end of year though.

Yes, go Doc! I wish I was better at low-level programming so I could 
help a little. If there would be any examples of simple bindings 
or base of TCP that we could extend to different protocols I would 
try to participate a little.

Kaj, just a remark about Red and bindings: there is still  an additional 
feature to come that will allow to import both Red/System and external 
libs functions directly in Red in a declarative way. It will use 
almost the same syntax as #import in Red/System but will convert 
the datatypes automatically (in the same way R2 does with routines 
and structs). A struct! datatype would then be added also to Red. 
The routine! datatype primary purpose is provide a way to write ultra-fast 
code and enable system programming, even if it can be also used to 
wrap Red/System bindings. I'm still unsure which approach would work 
the best for building bindings to C libraries. I guess you'll be 
the first to find out. ;-)

Red/System Question: In a function, a local variable v1 is declared 
as struct! [ v2 [integer!]  ]. Once the function is called, v1 is 
in stack, v2 is in heap. When the function call is over, v1 is gone, 
but v2 is still in heap, right?

Yes, structs are currently always on the heap

Well, static memory, actually, if you didn't create it with allocate

Doc, thanks for the heads-up. I'm also unsure which route to go, 
but I want to have the option to write Red/System only programs, 
so I guess I will usually build a Red binding on a Red/System binding

On the other hand, if a binding is mostly the #import section, the 
future format sounds more concise than writing all wrappers as routines

Thanks. Kaj

### Red/System Question ###
To get cpu count, I can do this in C:
   
   sysctlbyname("hw.ncpu", &cpuCount, &len, ((void *)0), 0);


But Red/System doesn't support &. How can I do this in Red/System? 
Thanks.

&cpuCount, &len are the two parameters that I don't know how to express 
in R/S.

It does support &, but it's written : like in REBOL :-)

Use :cpu-count :len

What does len specify?

len ... the length of buffer in the next parameter??? not sure.

From Announce: Great Kaj! The optimizer should be able to do a pretty 
good job on simple cases like Fibonacci function. Still, you'll have 
the Red stack management overhead, which is currently unavoidable, 
but in the future, we might found ways to optimize it too. Actually, 
I have two options to reduce stack overhead: stack multiple openings/closing 
compression and inlining stack calls, but we'll see that in Red v2.

Red/System Questions:


I am translating a piece of code from C to Red/System, I don't know 
how to translate the following C code:


success = OSAtomicCompareAndSwapPtrBarrier(NULL, newzone,  (void 
* volatile *)&_zone_); // C

my problems are: 

1. In Red/Sys, _sqliteZone_ is a struct! (which is a pointer in Red/Sys), 
so I cannot use :_zone_ to get it's address.
2. "(void * volatile *)" in C => "as byte-ptr!" in Red/Sys ??

Thanks!

1) Is _zone_ a struct or a struct pointer? If it is a struct, then 
in Red/System, you just pass the struct! variable.

2) Correct, use "as byte-ptr!" in such case.

1. _zone_ is a struct pointer. I need to pass a pointer to a struct 
pointer as the 3rd parameter, that's why I try to use get-word here.

For 1., you can achieve it this way:

    s: declare struct! [n [integer!]]
    p: declare int-ptr!
    p/value: as-integer s

then `p` becomes a pointer on `s`.


I might extend get-word syntax to struct! and pointer! too, someone 
just needs to add a ticket to Github to remind me of that.

Thanks, Doc

I usually solve such double references by wrapping the needed pointer 
in an extra struct. See the *-reference! types here:

http://red.esperconsultancy.nl/Red-common/artifact/aad3c29d7fb6647bb1e5d8b404d05211f5ed33c1

Speaking about atomic operations, any thought to get them in Red/System? 
I could use them well

Perhaps an atomic! type for an integer with guarantees about the 
generated code?

What are the chances that current integer operations already have 
atomic behaviour?

I'm not sure what you mean by "atomic operation"?

Red/System integer! operations are as atomic as the CPU permits.

Red/System maps its datatypes as closely as possible to the CPU (the 
same way C does).

Re atomic operation: atomic "x: x + 1", for example.

Atomic means safe from corruptions by other CPU cores accessing the 
same memory

http://syllable.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/syllable/syllable/system/sys/include/atheos/atomic.h?view=markup

These become vital when you start doing multi-core concurrency

Ok, I see what you mean. Like in C, you can already write "thread-safe" 
code in Red/System by using only variables on stack. If you need 
concurrent access to global variables, usually, the OS are already 
providing some API for that (locks, semaphores, mutex,...). I haven't 
chosen yet how it will be implemented at Red/System level, there 
are different options. For example, it could be handled by the language 
directly using a similar construct as in Java:

    synchronize [ x: x + 1 ]


In my early design notes, I have researched only how to handle concurrency 
at Red level, I've left the underlying Red/System part as an "implementation 
detail". I plan to start working on it after I/O will be implemented.