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

Compatibility REBOL 2.x / REBOL 3.0 ?

 [1/9] from: reboleur::free::fr at: 10-Mar-2009 14:37


Hi all :) A question concerning REBOL 3.0 : Will be all the REBOL 2.x scripts still compatible with REBOL 3.0 ? Especially REBOL/View : REBOL 2.x scripts fully compatible under REBOL 3.0 ? Thanks for your answers, Kind regards, S=E9bastien 'Jedi' Jeudy. _________________________________________ http://www.sebastien-jeudy.fr

 [2/9] from: henrikmk::gmail::com at: 10-Mar-2009 15:00


On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Jedi <reboleur-free.fr> wrote:
> > Hi all :) > A question concerning REBOL 3.0 : > > Will be all the REBOL 2.x scripts still compatible with REBOL 3.0 ? > Especially REBOL/View : REBOL 2.x scripts fully compatible under REBOL 3. > 0 ?
No, there will be very little compatibility with regards to REBOL/View and VID scripts. R3 is a redesign from the ground up, keeping only the greatest parts of R2 and building entirely new parts and changing existing ones. As such, the GUI engine is completely rewritten with more simplicity and ease of use in mind. For Core only scripts, some compatibility remains and with a special R2-forward function package, some R3 functions have been backported to R2 in slower versions, but even there, some fundamental changes in R3 will not allow existing scripts to be easily interchangable with R2. To write future scripts to be compatible with both R2 and R3, you must write them with both R2 and R3 in mind. This is possible. But to run existing scripts, you must first rewrite or adapt them to R3. -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen

 [3/9] from: reboleur:free at: 10-Mar-2009 18:43


Hi,
> No, there will be very little compatibility with regards to REBOL/View > and VID scripts. R3 is a redesign from the ground up, keeping only the
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> write them with both R2 and R3 in mind. This is possible. But to run > existing scripts, you must first rewrite or adapt them to R3.
Thank you, it's more clear. I hope that the adaptations between R2 and R3 will be minor, otherwise it will be difficult to port some applications... :-/
> -- > Regards, > Henrik Mikael Kristensen
Kind regards, Sebastien 'Jedi' Jeudy. _________________________________________ http://www.sebastien-jeudy.fr

 [4/9] from: fergus4:bellatlantic at: 10-Mar-2009 14:37


I have a large project now almost complete in R2...I can't wait to port it to r3. It needs a major rewrite anyway. (Sloppy code, discovered better ways to do things, new features that only R3 can offer) I would think most scripts in r2 are either small enough to port with no problem or are looking for an excuse to rewrite: tighten up code, add new function etc. That's the good thing about rebol...most scripts are small and easy to write the first time...now with r3 it may get easier and much more powerful...why worry about rewriting them? And if it works well enough now - no need to change it...R2 is not going away.

 [5/9] from: gregg::pointillistic::com at: 10-Mar-2009 13:02


Hi Alan, AM> I would think most scripts in r2 are either small enough to port with no AM> problem or are looking for an excuse to rewrite: tighten up code, add new AM> function etc. Not for me. I have production code that is made of large and small scripts, encapped apps, CGIs, and remote services. Qtask.com has a *lot* of REBOL code behind it. Graham Chiu and others also have apps out there for which porting is not an opportunity, but perhaps a necessary (and risky) cost of doing business. -- Gregg

 [6/9] from: semseddinm:bircom at: 11-Mar-2009 9:02


I think it is not necessary to port/rewrite R2 scripts to R3 unless you really need some R3 features. R2 is also good and stable. I still have projects on R2, even if R3 is released I will finish them on R2 anyway.

 [7/9] from: moliad::gmail::com at: 11-Mar-2009 4:38


hi Jedi, as an example, I know for certain that just about 0% of my 10 years of rebol codebase is compatible with R3. not only the view stuff but even the core stuff too. if you consider elixir with its over 350kb of assembled (and already clean and compact) code.. this is not so trivial, but its the price to pay for improvements. currently, I'm not attempting ports, because R3 is still a bit to slippery for me to consider really use, and its still lacking a few things which are needed in most of my application development. in fact right now, R3 would give me no real added benefits in raw feature (a part from a boost in evaluation speed) since R2 is already competent, and any functionality issues have been already addressed for my needs. I just resurrected an old project of mine (which is going to be liquified within a week or two) and just running it within 2.7.6 is causing it to crash unexpectedly.. this is a common problem in all computer languages, unfortunately. -MAx On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:02 AM, Şemseddin Moldibi [ Bircom ] < semseddinm-bircom.com> wrote:

 [8/9] from: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 11-Mar-2009 13:48


On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Alan Macleod wrote:
> I have a large project now almost complete in R2...I can't wait to port it > to r3.
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> problem or are looking for an excuse to rewrite: tighten up code, add new > function etc.
Speaking for myself, I've been coding in rebol for 9 years and have many large applications written in it. But rewriting, yes! Plus rebol 2 /core is a _very_ good product. Solid and stable on linux and sun OS's tj

 [9/9] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 10-Mar-2009 13:07


On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Alan Macleod wrote:
> I have a large project now almost complete in R2...I can't wait to port it > to r3.
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> problem or are looking for an excuse to rewrite: tighten up code, add new > function etc.
Speaking for myself, I've been coding in rebol for 9 years and have many large applications written in it. But rewriting, yes! tj

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted