World: r3wp

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?

I like that philosophy sort of, but it sucks for products I like 
and want to keep forever.

hehe, yeah. I don't like to owe someone, so L'easy is not for me.

that's true

but I hate losing things, it's a dilemma. :-)

I suppose we're assuming material ownership here. I've converted 
my material goods into goodwill in the past years and feel pretty 
good now that it can't be taken away from me :-)

that's a good move, Kaj

Will R3 Richtext support "hot links"? 

I mean links which are able to open files / links in other applications, 
or run a Rebol function when clicked?
Something like:

view [

 text [ "More info on " link http://www.rebol.org". Clickable " action 
 "text." [print "You clicked me!"]
]

yes

Now that's a clear answer, Thanks ;-)

not sure if it's going to be exactly like that though, but there 
will be hot areas for text, where you can do some kind of action.

This looks like the easiest way for me, but if there are better ones, 
I won't complain.

What do you think about the following addition to trace?

trace/log %file


which would write trace output to a file, so it can be reviewed later, 
sent by email, ...