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

[REBOL] Re: Commercializing Rebol

From: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 16-May-2001 17:19

> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf > Of Petr Krenzelok > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 1:47 PM > To: [rebol-list--rebol--com] > Subject: [REBOL] Re: Commercializing Rebol > But wait a minute - who speaks of shared libraries? Besides that - if > you prefer "bloat" in principle, it says someting.
Hi, that's ture ;-).
> It has nothing to do with HD space. But - > mobile communication is coming. There is no space to waste. Mobile > networks are also throughput limited - how do you upgrade your component if
> is internally inside one .exe?
The point is right, and now you know why I asked how can I update a /Runtime wrapped script without having to download the whole /Core again. I see the wrapping method as a shelter for my application, more like a delivery container no one can touch, it's my application's universe.
> Let's say Carl changes something in VID and I really don't > understand why should I download the whole Rebol once again. Rebol, in its > principle, - is very granular (referring to series).
Right, and that's why Rebol should support a selective update function for wrapped parts. But I don't care to download 600KB for a new application if it has everything contained. If this safes me 30 minutes of work, because the app just works it's good! I don't like downloading Rebol than an app, than an update to Rebol and the app doesn't work anymore... This is OK as long as we have short scripts but not with professional applications.
> If you don't like your files scattered around your harddisk, probably > some looong time ago suggested aproach could work, but I am not sure - maybe > rebol could have some 'pack 'unpack commands, which would attach components
into the
> executable.
Here we are on the right track IMO.
> But maybe you mean just something different? e.g. mechanism working > as linker, which would pack functionality needed into one executable, so if
> contains e.g. 10 funcs and only 3 of them are called, then those 3 would be
linked in? Or? This would be nice but it's hard to achive, with non object code. I don't think it will be possible.
> You can as well have your librarie in the same directory as app is, > so what version problems are you talking about?
;-) Well, and than I prefer a single file because libraries in the same directory as the app is just a tautology. However, if you want to install two versions, you need two directories... Robert