Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: DLL Hell = Rebol library script version

From: moliad:aei:ca at: 11-Nov-2003 22:11

diluting ... LOL subtle... I read it a few times before getting it ;-) I'm tired ;-) I'll keep it my list of reserved words ;-) Volker, I agree that RT should set the standards. But with so little official speak, I am tired of waiting. I know Carl S. is protective of a specific plan he has outlined, I understand, he needs to keep control. But for x reason its not getting done. I am willing to put effort into it, I already have, maybe it would be a good idea if We do our stuff and see if RT believes in it. if so, maybe it will prompt RT to put more emphasis on something much more important, since a "temporary" solution is available, supported and functional. I want to try and get in direct contact with RT but not until I have a real release with specs and code examples. Would you rather have them put time on increasing view (forget about vid) fixing/improving the network protocols, finishing IOS applets, etc, etc, etc. I know I would. I talk about the COMMUNITY adopting a specific code standard it finds resonable for loading code dynamically without cause for namespace clash. I am working on a full-fledged tool as part of the steel project, so I thought I'd at least give it a go to see how it holds up to public scrutiny (more in terms of capacity/features than in pure code elegance. This will take an hour or two to improve with all the geniuses on this list ;). I'll stop repeating myself, but just add that I am the type of person that doesn't wait on others, including for programming. I'm not saying I frown on RT or others on the list with different opinions, I just can't sit and look at time pass, Steel has to move on and it basically depends on linkable libraries, since its tools are so huge. Just let me release the library tool and then, sink it if you hate it. ;-) If an RT sanctionned module standard gets done in 6 months well hey, I guess I'll adapt to it, if it does all I need. I mean the hole amiga os was built on the concept of REAL shared libaries, it was one of its most attractive design features, I can't forget that. I was brought-up on the good stuff... ;-) -MAx === Original Message === Am Dienstag, 11. November 2003 19:11 schrieb Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch:
> I find it funny that there is so much differing opinions on this topic. > > :-D which makes it lively a topic/list to follow and discuss :-) > > python is built over a library standard and it is all the better for it. > It allows a large group of developpers to contribute to the package > completely transparently. I'M not saying I like python itself, only that I > recognize how its modules ideology has helped it. > > There are things missing in its library methods which do make it a little > dangerous to use to share code, but if it gets placed into the core > distribution, it becomes safe cause its api has to get "locked". >
In our case that would be, its in rebol-runtime. Fortunally or not, rebols have decided Carl defines the /core. Today with RT low on manpower. Its a bit tricky to decide if something is not included because of manpower or because it dilutes the core.
> I DO think that python has TOO many libraries and that a greater effort at > reducing code duplication and mismatch should have been done for the core > distribution. One obvious and basic problem is the fact that there are > string functions AND string methods, but NOT ALL methods have function > equivalents, which is a bad design IMHO. I'm always wondering if such and > such an operation is a method or a function.... :-( >
diluting is a good word, specially in connection with liquid, no? ;)
> I'm trying to learn from other's mistake (but can't say I'm an all knowing > guru ;-). > > Like I said, I'll be releasing more information with more specific details > of what I want to provide as a linkable library system. Judgment by trial. > ;-) > > The loader's essential functionality is working on my system. >
Another point about a loader is, Rebol has already one. Its called IOS. Unfortunally its soo expensive. so + building such stuff is fun + its a lot cheaper - makes competition to RT based on its own products?
> I need to work on a real setup/install application which actually can look > up your setup. this would handler both core and vid setups (text or vid > install :-)
If its for fun, i am all for it. But you talk a lot about setting standards. And rebol-standards should be RT's decision IMHO. -Volker