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

[REBOL] Re: How to request a new version on a specific platform?

From: volker:nitsch:gm:ail at: 3-Aug-2006 21:04

On 8/3/06, Brain Lai <brainlai1102-gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I am no insider, as far as i know: Sometimes demand of the form "Hey RT, can you build for platform X?" is enough. But currently RT is busy with a major rewrite and stretching its manpower.
> 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?
Hum.. If it runs on windows, linux, mac, that demonstrates the technical property. But not in the "available"-sense. Not good, but manpower and priorities.. OTOH, if there is 2.5.* for mips, its not that different.
> 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.
Embedded seems not to be a high priority at RT. Part of it is, the binary is small, but it needs some MB of ram for internal things, so the footprint is somewhat big. (for embedded, on desktops that amount is barely noticable). Rebol3 wants to change that, less memory and better hooks to the outside, so that "closed source" is a much smaller showstopper. About c++, i guess its libraries have quirks too, and you have to either fix that or find a workaround too.
> 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. >
Setting up the rarely used platform and adjusting some makefiles may take a few hours. + some testing.
> --Brain Lai > > -- > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to > lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. >
-- -Volker Any problem in computer science can be solved with another layer of indirection. But that usually will create another problem. David Wheeler