World: r3wp

So do you get the Boron console when you start it from a terminal?

That's not what I mean. Application bundles must start their embedded 
executable, when doubleclicked or when using OPEN in the terminal.

I don't know how that works on OS X. I only know that it just works 
on other Unixy systems such as Linux and Syllable

yes, if I go into the OSX bundle.

If extra code is required on OS X, then that can be expected from 
finished commercial apps, but Boron is a volunteer project a year 
old

How do you start R3 on OS X? Isn't there an app setting where you 
must tell OS X to start a command line program in a terminal?

A bundle is simply a directory, which contains specific directories 
and has a specific icon. OSX recognizes such directories as applications. 
Inside are libraries, icons, images and executables of various CPU 
platforms. The user then sees the directory as an application, which, 
when double clicked, automatically runs the correct executable inside 
according to CPU platform. You're not supposed to go inside a bundle 
to start the program.

Anyway, if you can start boron, you can proceed to starting the demo

R2 and R3 are not bundled, so when starting them, is the same as 
other unixes.

How do you start the host kit version of R3, which has a separate 
library?

R3 for OSX does not have it separated.

The host kit version does

Anyway, I don't have OS X, so the best thing to do is to take this 
up with Karl on the Boron mailing list

If you want to run the demo, you can now do so

I'm not sure if there is a hostkit version yet for OSX. Mine comes 
from Carl.

yes, ok

The shared library for OS X is in the Git repository

ok, I haven't tried it.

The host kit became available for OS X when Andreas solved the linking 
problem on OS X for Carl

ok

Any results?

sorry, I have other things to do right now.

Here's the new manual for the Boron OpenGL interface:

http://urlan.sourceforge.net/boron/doc/UserManualGL.html

Thanks, I was curious to see that. Interesting first approach to 
an OpenGL wrapper dialect.

Boron just added an embedded assembler via LibJIT

A bit surprizing move, I guess that Red project is stimulating competition. 
:-)

well, then R3 is not a competition :-)

Seems like it :-)

Graham from Red - "Karl has failed to engage with the Rebol community 
as far as I can see."


Personally, I have found Karl very approachable and responsive on 
the Boron MIL.

What Graham meant is the "integation" with the Rebol community. I 
can't remember him much from ML, altme, web forums. But - that does 
not mean, his project is not usefull ...

He opened up all the standard open source avenues, so we are supposed 
to engage with him. But with few exceptions, we didn't

Just a remider that boron is an fully open-source REBOL-like evaluator 
built-in C. It has 23 datatypes and more than 100 "native" functions. 

The Boron homepage is at http://urlan.sourceforge.net/boron/

! Good point, Peter!

if it wasn't GPL it might already have supplanted R3 years ago.

I really don't understand the licensing issue about Boron. Java is 
GPL licensed and it doesn't stop people usng it. Boron is licensed 
under LGPL.. What is the impediment to adopting Boron?

Surely, it's only a possible problem if you are going to embed Boron 
inside your code?

Maybe it's that you can't look at the source and then work on a comparable 
non-*GPL project?

Java's a special case: It got popular while it was proprietary, but 
open source people wanted to use it too but they couldn't. So they 
cloned Java under a Classpath license, which eventually led to Java 
itself being GPL'ed, which may have led to Sun dying (hard to say, 
but it did kill Java's value to the company). Still, it's mostly 
the proprietary versions of Java that are in use, and the business 
model is mostly based on proprietary restrictions to the use of the 
code.

note, I didn't want to start a licensing discussioh, it was just 
an observation based on my perspective as a "curious outsider"  of 
the Boron project.

As the only comparable projects to boron seem to be REBOL and World 
(both of which are closed source),, I can't see the "not being able 
to look at the source" issue being a problem. I don't think that 
boron's licensing has anything to do with its level of popularity.

Agreed. People who can't come to terms with the LGPL, which is everywhere, 
will have to be content with REBOL and stop complaining about Boron

They should probably also stop using Chrome, Safari, OpenOffice, 
GCC, Linux and the like

Kaj - why should anyone stop using any product? That's a fanatical 
claim.

But - if GPL means, that I am supposed to open source my commercial 
app, not just eventual changes I made to GPLed parts, then GPL is 
another fanatical crap.

And if GPL is really like that, it is in fact denying a freedom of 
choice. BSD like licences are the way to go.

All the ones I mentioned are LGPL and GCC and Linux are even worse: 
GPL. So if you don't want to use Boron because it's LGPL, you can't 
use all that other software, either

So my claim is not fanatical, the claim that Boron is unusable is

And please stop talking about GPL in this context. It has nothing 
to do with Boron

Sorry, Peter was wondering why people in the REBOL community didn't 
adopt Boron. Aside from REBOL being good enough, licensing was why. 
I have no reason to not use a *GPL product as a black box - it's 
looking at the source that can be a problem.