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

[REBOL] Re: Multimedia REBOL... yes or no?

From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 11-Jul-2003 13:04

Cyphre wrote:
>5.Another question is to support different consoles and mobile devices. IMO >the best bussiness driven choice would be: >-PlaystationII in the gaming consoles area >-SybianOS in the mobile market(it beats all currently used systems ans all >big Mobile vendors(eg. Siemens..) who don't yet already have it on their >devices are switching to it) >
OK, but I am not sure RT can do it without rethinking the strategy. I remember someone stating that it was said by RT that current non-modular architecture is partially a marketing decision. I don't know what can be actually done in that situation - there is no simple conclusion. E.g. IIRC Gabriele does not like the idea of one single rebolcore.exe and e.g. view.dll, but the question is - can we affort core differences thru all product lines? Does not it hurt rebol more than we think? Can we see View running on Symbian powered devices? Eg. if I want to develop small game, I don't care about VID - well - you can say - use SDK /Face then ... but I don't care about face effects either - I may want just basic and fast blitting + having some few handy bitmap manipulation general functions available. Of course I don't know how View internally works, what is loaded into memory and what is not, but it has imo high memory consumption to allow it to work on some nowadays mobile devices. Then we have to ask ourselves - why do other technologies can do it, but we can't? I think that we can't live with the idea of all-in-one-exe forever. Because - it just means - compromises. And as Robert said - I etiher need fully working feature X, or if not fully implemented, it is useless to me anyway. But then others will cry, that my requested feature bloats rebol, because other don't need it. But we all come from different fields and we all would like to see rebol succeed in different areas - so who decides what goes in and what does not? Plug-ins - they don't necessarily mean .dll hell - we have script rebol header, it contain 'needs field, we can have automatically downloaded versions. As for me I would prefer that situation instead of - "uh, you need View x.y.z,", Uh, Command contains old core and that function is not available etc. What is more - each single change in Veiw means you download whole exe. That is not necessary - we know better. Look at following white-paper - new Tao Intent2 - those sound capabilities - clean design - plug-ins - it is capable to be running in 120KB of ROM and 32KB of RAM! Judge for yourself ... 2 Overview_2.pdf It is not flaming nor critique - I just try to fight my position - you know I was always after more granular aproach to rebol - if you don't like it, you can over-vote me :-) Anyway -it will be interesting to see, what Carl thinks is the right technological future for REBOL! Cheers & friendly, -pekr-