[REBOL] Re: rebol 3 => 64 Bit problems
From: henrikmk::gmail at: 12-Feb-2009 18:23
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 February 2009, Henrik Mikael Kristensen wrote:
>
>> The issue has been well known to RT for years: Linux is the hardest OS
>> to support due to its very non-standardized nature. There are constant
>> kernel and library changes. But RT usually asks regularly what people
>> use the most, and then compile versions of REBOL to that Linux
>> variant. The question was in fact asked again a few days ago, when the
>> R3 version was going to be built. The answer was Ubuntu and an Ubuntu
>> version was built.
> We've never had such problems with python or perl. We have never had to
> build perl or python on our machines. Although I have built newlisp.
> Thusly, I believe you are overstating the variance among linx distros.
I'm sure Carl will love some advice on that, but if it involves
support for a large number of libraries by ballooning the R3
distribution to several megabytes, then Carl will not do it. It has to
be done on his terms and he's very adamant on that. We need to find a
solution.
> It has been a long time since I programmed in C and had to compile, but
> I believe a strategy for more flexible loading or static linking exists.
>
> Furthermore rebol 2 should be compiled for 64-bit. The year I started
> coding for compensation - 1989 - was the year of the Ashton-Tate
> dBase fiasco. And I was programming in dBaseIII+ and dBaseIV.
> I quote from the Wikipedia entry:
>
> "a focus on future products without addressing the needs of the current
> customers."
>
> There's a cautionary tale there.
>
> I am glad that you are building for ubuntu. You should take great effort
> to ensure that rebol is in the repositories and that it includes a nice
> application of some sort. I would like to test such a build.
As said, we need a package maintainer for going through "proper
channels" on a Linux distribution. If one can be found, then I think
RT will take advantage of him.
> If you are part of the development team did you see my email of
> Saturday 07 February 2009, subject "Re: Inside R3's developement..."?
> I am very concerned that no one replied to my problem there.
Only Carl has access to the C code and he's the one who decides which
versions get built. I'm checking that mail now...
> Rebol has served me, my company and my customers very well for
> 9 years. It is a pleasure to work with and at least 50% more productive
> than python or perl in small, single-programmer projects. Even tho'
> I use it as the critical part of my productivity and production tools,
> I've stop doing any development for customers until a mature rebol
> with 64-bit compatibility is available.
>
> A 64-bit rebol 2 should have been built long ago. If but a few server
> farms start converting to 64-bit and rebol binaries become inoperable,
> there will be such a stink that rebol3 will never overcome.
> I hate to be the contrarian here, but what I say needs to be said.
> And this is all I have to say on the subject.
>
> However, I hope this issue stays on the front of everyone's minds,
> including windows users.
I agree that we should have 64 bit support, but again: If no one tells
RT *directly* that a significant portion of Linux users can't use
REBOL due to some incompatibility that requires building a new
version, then nothing will happen. Specific versions have been built
before and I'm sure it will happen again.
I will bring this issue to Carl's attention.
--
Regards,
Henrik Mikael Kristensen
