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


From: dada:gecko:verizon at: 18-Jul-2002 11:13

> Yes, that's true. And that's the reason why I don't think that > REBOL/View should have DirectX support as some people suggested. Maybe > REBOL isn't fastest right now but there are other ways than using some > tricky proprietary API existing just for one platform.
I agree :)
> I think each port of Rebol/View should get maximum from the possibilities of > the platform where is runnig. So why should REBOL use slow and ugly software > rendering on systems with great graphics power?
Just to this point (and it's a good one). The JVM is a great example. Java Swing is a langauge-specific GUI rendering language, and it's the biggest RAM hog I have ever run into. The Compaq Armada I run at work chokes while running Swing-based app., and has anyone ever tried Limewire on OSX? Man. Slow-city. My point is that Rebol/View has broad platform support with a fast and fairly pleasing (and if not, we can make our own) GUI. I think it would be great to make us able to call DirectX or Quartz or ActiveX or what-have-you, but i don't want to see it built in, per se, as I think that would turn Rebol into bloatware. We already have enough bloatware. Yes to speed. No to bloat. Think small. Think fast. Build good software. Make people happy. sd -- --------------------------------- : sabin densmore : : [sabin--onegecko--com] : irc: #rebol