[REBOL] Re: How to request a new version on a specific platform?
From: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 3-Aug-2006 11:27
* John Blake <jblake-arsenaldigital.com> [060803 10:40]:
> " I just feel disappointed because it should be a
> piece of cake to build new releases for other platforms."
>
> Interesting. I am trying Rebol because I thought it was portable.
> Portable as in the same thing can be loaded on all OS's supported.
> Are you guys saying it cant be loaded on all those OS's without
> downloading a code for each OS?
> I must be misunderstanding something.
Hi John:
The rebol binary is an interpreter. It is in fact an application
that must be compiled for the target OS.
On the other hand the rebol code itself is for the most part
portable.
If you are writing rebol code for CGI scripting the '#!' line
may need to be taken into consideration as the path to and the
name of the binary can be different on different OS.
Example: on Windows: the rebol binary is named "rebol.exe" on
*nix systems it is "rebol" (no extension).
Everything I have stated here applies to other scripting (interpreted)
languages like python, perl, ruby et al.
HTW
tim
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rebol-bounce-rebol.com [mailto:rebol-bounce-rebol.com] On Behalf
> Of Brain Lai
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:06 PM
> To: rebolist-rebol.com
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: How to request a new version on a specific
> platform?
>
> Dear Mr. Gregg:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> However, I don't understand what you mean "the demand is low." One shall
> ask
> what demand is high. So far the release of version 2.6.x just supports
> several so-called major desktop OS and platforms, especially x86
> architecture. Are these enough to demonstrate REBOL's portability? If
> people
> sees no portability, who demands REBOL?
>
> For most developers diving into embedded systems, they even don't knnow
> what
> REBOL is about. Event if some of them try REBOL a few times, they cannot
> still make sure REBOL's continuous support for miscellaneous embedded
> systems such as ARM, 68K, BSP, MIPS, RISC and etc. The future looks so
> unclear. The only thing obvious is that no availablity no
> portability. A
> conclusion is reached: come back to C/C++ rather than figure out what
> mezzanines and protocol malfunction since C/C++'s availability is
> undoutedly nonesuch.
>
> Slim and lightweight are more advantageous in embedded systems than on
> desktop. But once again: no availability no advantage.
>
> Sorry to complain the truth. I just feel disappointed because it should
> be a
> piece of cake to build new releases for other platforms.
>
> --Brain Lai
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
> lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
> lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
--
Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com>
http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com
