World: r4wp
[#Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3333] | -- END OF MY ARGUMENTATION -- |
Pekr 5-Nov-2012 [3334] | Giuseppe - in few months, Red will gain 80% of Core functionality, and even surpass it in some areas. Just let it live ... |
Arnold 5-Nov-2012 [3335] | my vote is already a 100% for Red :) |
Jerry 5-Nov-2012 [3336] | I would like DocKimbel to stick with his own idea, not to be affected by the Open-source of R3. |
BrianH 5-Nov-2012 [3337] | but implementation is totally different - That's what I meant by "isn't really set yet". They will likely be different because of the different language semantic models, but they might be more alike than you think once both are set. |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3338x2] | Yes but I will have 4 wheel and an engine. The same of REBOL3. It is the result which counts. |
However I understand the pleasure of reimplementing everything in my own way. | |
Arnold 5-Nov-2012 [3340] | Yes but do you need a family car or a Formula1 car? Or a truck? |
Pekr 5-Nov-2012 [3341] | Giuseppe - let's really be fair to Doc here! You are asking him to give-up on what was really a strong decision for him, which even has influenced his life. Doc moved from France to Montenegro, in order to work on Red. And all that would not be necessary, if Carl would not let us in the water. So really - just let Doc alone for few moments, to think about all new consequences ... |
Jerry 5-Nov-2012 [3342] | ditto. |
Pekr 5-Nov-2012 [3343] | BrianH: I think Doc's answer was to Giuseppe claiming that Red is just a REBOl clone ... |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3344] | Arnold. We are talking about minor differences like a car with 2 doors instead of 4 and electric glasses in place of manual ones. The comparison doesn't suit here. If BOTH languages are "Very Close" (read above), which are the advantages ? |
DocKimbel 5-Nov-2012 [3345x2] | Giuseppe: they might seem similar on the surface, but I can garantee you that you'll see and feel the difference when Red will be mature enough. |
Giuseppe: you seem to not understand the difference between a interpreter and a compiler. | |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3347x4] | Yes I understand. |
But I want to make the DEVIL ADVOCATE. When RED will be mature. In which scenario should a developer choose it instead of REBOL3 ? | |
(And let me state again: I apreciate your commitment) | |
It is a question that must be answered. It is the core of your project, it is the motivation for your "customers". | |
Henrik 5-Nov-2012 [3351] | GiuseppeC: Red/System is a language to build other languages using a similar syntax as REBOL, one of which is Red. R3 is based on C. There is no way for R3 to tap directly inline into C's performance, while Red will be able to. I think this is quite a feat that might make Red much more flexible than R3. You also get encapping right out of the box with the current compiler. I can't come up with an appropriate car analogy. |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3352] | Henrik, PERFORMANCE. It is the first difference. Now the car can run faster. Any other differences ? |
Henrik 5-Nov-2012 [3353] | Red/System also offers a nicely compact and clean toolchain, which R3 doesn't even focus on. As far as I know, not many people like the current C toolchains. |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3354x2] | I am talking about RED and not RED/System. |
Just to make it clear. | |
Henrik 5-Nov-2012 [3356] | That means that we have total 100% control over how and where Red can build. We don't depend on the quality of the compiler for a platform. |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3357] | I can see and huge difference between C and RED/System which give to the latter a great appeal to the developers. |
Henrik 5-Nov-2012 [3358] | I don't think you can talk Red without talking Red/System, because in the long run, you may be happy to have Red/System available instead of resorting to C for performance parts. |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3359x2] | Henrik, yeas, I want RED/system, I feel this needing. It is easy, human compatible, it is nice. It makes the difference. |
Ok, I am leaving, I have to go away. | |
Kaj 5-Nov-2012 [3361] | Henrik speaks wise words. For the past decade, we've been occupied with maintaining the GNU C/C++ toolchain in Syllable. If it hadn't been so problematic, we could have spent that time developing the operating system itself, and the project might have been in a much better position now |
GiuseppeC 5-Nov-2012 [3362] | To everyone: my questions are not meant to create problems. I work every day with customers and they always ask me "which is the difference between you and this other product/service". |
Kaj 5-Nov-2012 [3363x3] | So the difference between Red and R3 is between a car that takes you there, and a car that breaks down before reaching your destination |
It's a fair question, but the answer depends on insight | |
I find myself less and less interested in REBOL, even open sourced | |
Arnold 5-Nov-2012 [3366] | Well Guiseppe, you may have to think of a second hand car ;) You can drive with it, it can be the car you wanted but some details as its color and chairheating can differ from what you had in mind. It is up to you to buy it anyway. By buying second hand you can have a more powerful engine than buying a new car. |
Kaj 5-Nov-2012 [3367x2] | Remember that the REBOLution was proclaimed to create the next generation operating system. However, REBOL falls seriously short there, not having delivered an operating system and not running well on top of any other operating system |
Red does solve the problems that need to be solved there | |
Arnold 5-Nov-2012 [3369x2] | For what I have seen, Kaj, I can second that. I use REBOL to learn Red ;) |
And the liberation from the C tool CHAIN Viva la Liberation! | |
Kaj 5-Nov-2012 [3371] | :-) |
Henrik 5-Nov-2012 [3372] | It may be time to consider REBOL an idea, a good one and one that now needs to have its true wings in the form of Red. |
Pekr 5-Nov-2012 [3373] | it would be also possible to rewrite R3 in Red/System, but then R3 would be similar to Red itself? |
Kaj 5-Nov-2012 [3374] | Doc tells me an interpreter would be simple to write in Red, so even there no need for R3 |
Arnold 5-Nov-2012 [3375x2] | Does R3 need a console? It would be the interpreter made using Red. |
you beat me Kaj! | |
Pekr 5-Nov-2012 [3377] | Kaj - not sure it will be a console, but something like that, just not an interpreter, but more a JIT compiler? |
Kaj 5-Nov-2012 [3378] | Red will be a JIT compiler, but you could still write an interpreter on top of it. Might even be useful, for example for platforms that block JIT compilation |
Jerry 5-Nov-2012 [3379] | When the "Red Memory Manager" Doc will be released? |
AdrianS 5-Nov-2012 [3380] | I posted in Sublime Text's forum in regard to the lexing needs that we might need for good Red support. The author hasn't answered yet, but maybe if others add to the thread, it'll keep it near the top and show there's interest in the idea. I suppose even if ST doesn't make its lexer pluggable, we could just make the built-in lexer do as little as possible by including no tmLanguage file for Red and delegating any syntax coloring/scope processing to a native library that's part of a Sublime Text package for the Red language. http://www.sublimetext.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9870 |
Ashley 6-Nov-2012 [3381] | I think Red's USP is, "the performance of C with the elegance of REBOL" ... which is attractive to many folks like myself who woundln't otherwise venture near a "compiled" language (given the usual ease of use trade-off). |
AdrianS 6-Nov-2012 [3382] | Nenad, could you describe a little the structure that's built up by the lexer? Are you intending to (at some point) allow for some sort of AST-like (if this is not what's generated already) structure to be passed back in along with some way of describing the start/end of a modified region in order to reduce the parsing that would need to be done if the lexer was being called relatively frequently when editing a large source string? |
older newer | first last |