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

Dialect for Flash files

 [1/15] from: etienne::alaurent::free::fr at: 17-Jun-2001 19:58


Hi, REBOLers, I would like to know if someone developped a dialect to play Flash files. I think it could be a great feature for the REBOL community. Cheers --- Etienne

 [2/15] from: cyphre:volny:cz at: 18-Jun-2001 15:46


Hello Etienne and all, I was playing with that idea about year ago.../View engine is cool but lacks some features which are neccesary to achieve at least simmilar results... Here are some of them: -improved DRAW dialect (what about line-size, ellipse...) -native and developer-accesible aplha-channel operations -native full rotate effect -Rebol's own font engine with anti-aliasing anyway /View is still slower than Flash engine (especially when using realtime effects) and why to "emulate" another technology while we have /View ;-) BTW parsing and decompressing Flash file format would be really a Big nightmare from my POW ;-) Nowadays I'm completely rewriting SWIS engine which will turn out to completely modular GUI environment. When this will be done I want to make own vector/bitmap-based engine with editor for demo making...any comments are welcome ;-) regards, Cyphre

 [3/15] from: etienne:alaurent:free at: 19-Jun-2001 0:13


Le lun, 18 jun 2001, vous avez écrit :
>Hello Etienne and all, >I was playing with that idea about year ago.../View engine is cool but lacks
<<quoted lines omitted: 15>>
>regards, >Cyphre
Hi, Cyphre and REBOLers, I agree with you ;-) In fact, my reflexions come from the reading of an article in a french programming paper witch speaks about a new implementation of an old programming language - SMALLTALK. Its name is SQUEAK (www.squeak.org) and it contains, in basic version, a Flash reader, lots of sounds readers (like WAV, MIDI and MP3), a 2D and 3D engine, a very powerfull GUI engine, an OCR tool, streaming for sounds, many Internet protocols functions (like REBOL), etc ... This new implementation is in development (the next version is 3.0), is **free** and for many systems (more than REBOL can do). My reflexions bring me to think that if REBOL wants to emerge, and win, all these kinds of tools must be implemented and for no cost (it is probably a dream). These are simply some reflexions ... --- Etienne

 [4/15] from: carl:rebol at: 18-Jun-2001 16:25


Yep, we all know about Squeak... It's been around for a while now. The guys who wrote it are old friends of mine from Apple computer. It's based on Smalltalk-80... and remains true to that design, thanks to a good team... now at Disney. However, Squeak has different objectives that REBOL. Squeak is meant to be an entire programming environment whereas REBOL is meant to create lightweight network applications. On my system here, Squeak takes about 30 seconds to start (REBOL/View takes about 2 seconds), and it's meant to be kept open the entire time. So, each language has its merits. Use the language that makes the most sense for what you want to do. There really are no "winners". Most languages continue to exist. Fortran and Cobol are still used today. -Carl At 6/19/01 12:13 AM +0200, you wrote:

 [5/15] from: etienne:alaurent:free at: 19-Jun-2001 2:24


Hi, Carl, Le mar, 19 jun 2001, vous avez écrit :
>Yep, we all know about Squeak... It's been around >for a while now. The guys who wrote it are old >friends of mine from Apple computer. It's based >on Smalltalk-80... and remains true to that design, >thanks to a good team... now at Disney. > >However, Squeak has different objectives that REBOL.
That's true.
>Squeak is meant to be an entire programming environment >whereas REBOL is meant to create lightweight network >applications.
I agree.
>On my system here, Squeak takes about >30 seconds to start (REBOL/View takes about 2 seconds), >and it's meant to be kept open the entire time.
On my system (Linux Mandrake 7 + Pentium II/300 + 192 Mb mem + 30 Gb hard disk), the Squeak basic environment takes about 5 seconds to start, and REBOL/View takes 2 seconds. Anyway, there is no problem, because I don't use Squeak.
>So, each language has its merits.
I agree again.
>Use the language that makes the most sense for what you want to do.
I use REBOL/View because it is ok for me.
>There really are no "winners". Most languages continue to exist. >Fortran and Cobol are still used today.
I agree again and again. Anymay, I'm dreaming of a complete programming environment for REBOL, compatible with lightweight network programming. It could be so cool ;-) I'm dreaming... I'm dreaming... --- Etienne

 [6/15] from: doublec:acc at: 19-Jun-2001 13:52


Carl says: "It's based on Smalltalk-80... and remains true to that design, thanks to a good team... now at Disney." Alas, no longer. Disney appears to have cut back and Alan and the rest of Squeak central are no longer part of Disney. Last I heard (from the Squeak mailing list a few days ago) most of the team is still together and plan to continue working on Squeak as a team though. Chris. -- http://www.double.co.nz/dylan

 [7/15] from: agem:crosswinds at: 19-Jun-2001 4:51


RE: [REBOL] Re: Dialect for Flash files Hi Etienne [etienne--alaurent--free--fr] wrote:
> Hi, Carl, > Le mar, 19 jun 2001, vous avez écrit :
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
> >whereas REBOL is meant to create lightweight network > >applications.
hum. what needs a programming environment what a lightweight network environment does not need? lots of people accessing the same source for lots of reasons..
> I agree. > >On my system here, Squeak takes about
<<quoted lines omitted: 14>>
> compatible with lightweight network programming. It could be so cool ;-) > I'm dreaming... I'm dreaming...
What do you want to write? i have rebol-desktop, inbuild editor, and a language which does lots with few code. gui-builder is called vid with no mouse-dragging but 3 run-trials and done, trial 3 seconds. wizzards like m$-build-everything? simple syntax and some meta-programming and no mfc.. there is index-maker which creates desktop-indices for the rebol-desktop for a whole directory-tree. after that desktop competes with most source-browsers IMHO. a external file-browser (Carl, you mentioned you have parts of an own browser?), if Carl would allow us linuxers a 'browse-file like with windows, we could start it from desktop too.. without hacking netscape-script. oops, i didn't write that. clean-script-gui cleans scripts as well as every formatter, and if i need global searching there are some tempates flying around here. well, searching the templates.. whats more is a CPE? ok, three quarters the time are experiments and looking in source, but i see Carls how-to's doing better than CPE-bibles. seems he starts to _speak_ rebol :) rest is about capabilities: 3D, flash, speed and so on. the question: is simple plugging in is a good way? you know, spaceships: the fast guys starting the hard year-flight with current stuff, visited half the way by the later guys on a holliday-tour.. which never understand all the stuff the fast guys where talking about, cause of other jobs. if rebol can be made ready for them, its better than having flash or that and not being able to use.. but dreaming- oh yes dreaming :-) does not mean i would not like squeak too. where is it? -Volker

 [8/15] from: agem:crosswinds at: 19-Jun-2001 4:51


RE: [REBOL] Re: Dialect for Flash files [etienne--alaurent--free--fr] wrote:
> Le lun, 18 jun 2001, vous avez écrit : > >Hello Etienne and all,
<<quoted lines omitted: 37>>
> these kinds of tools must be implemented and for no cost (it is probably a > dream).
I AM WORKING ON IT !! oops, oh, hey, Carl *dog with sausage sees boss..*

 [9/15] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 18-Jun-2001 17:36


[agem--crosswinds--net] wrote:
> does not mean i would not like squeak too. where is it? >
http://www.squeak.org/ -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Programming languages: compact, powerful, simple ... Pick any two! joel'dot'neely'at'fedex'dot'com

 [10/15] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 19-Jun-2001 6:19


Carl Sassenrath wrote:
> Squeak is meant to be an entire programming environment > whereas REBOL is meant to create lightweight network > applications.
Ah, direction switch or what? Where's original masterplan standing nowadays? Was it so long ago you said multimedia is your second name? :-) /Scala /Scala /Scala (Come on guys, we all want more cool media stuff :-)
> On my system here, Squeak takes about > 30 seconds to start (REBOL/View takes about 2 seconds), > and it's meant to be kept open the entire time. > > So, each language has its merits. Use the language > that makes the most sense for what you want to do.
No, you are wrong Carl - wrong and responsible. You have to bear in mind, that once you introduced Rebol to us - we don't want to program in anything else anymore :-) <vision> ... and one day, I will replace my handheld's WinCE explorer.exe with rebol.exe -si swis.r :-) </vision> Cheers, -pekr-

 [11/15] from: cyphre:volny:cz at: 19-Jun-2001 9:48


Heya PeKr :) and all
>> So, each language has its merits. Use the language >> that makes the most sense for what you want to do. > >No, you are wrong Carl - wrong and responsible. You have to bear in mind,
that once
>you introduced Rebol to us - we don't want to program in anything else
anymore :-) Yes that's true...I'm also one of many REBOL victims :-)
> <vision> ... and one day, I will replace my handheld's WinCE explorer.exe
with
> "rebol.exe -si swis.r" :-) </vision> >
you are reading my thoughts :-) question for RT: Will you make a port of /View for WinCE? I cannot find it in download section. :-p /View for PDAs is only one reason to save money an buy such a device :) I know, VID is not the best solution for that purpose but it's just default graphical dialect so... Don't be afraid of porting /view on machines with small resolution displays! ;-) Regards Cyphre

 [12/15] from: agem:crosswinds at: 19-Jun-2001 13:54


RE: [REBOL] Re: Dialect for Flash files Hi Petr [Petr--Krenzelok--trz--cz] wrote:
> Carl Sassenrath wrote: > > Squeak is meant to be an entire programming environment
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> so long ago you said multimedia is your second name? :-) /Scala /Scala /Scala (Come > on guys, we all want more cool media stuff :-)
Petr, i think "lightweight network applications" describes TV very well? going more and more lightweight. as rebol, but the opposite way ;-)
> > On my system here, Squeak takes about > > 30 seconds to start (REBOL/View takes about 2 seconds),
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> No, you are wrong Carl - wrong and responsible. You have to bear in mind, that once > you introduced Rebol to us - we don't want to program in anything else anymore :-)
We can't, Petr, we can't! at least not with enough fun. which meant we can't in a way.. ;-) -Volker

 [13/15] from: kenneth:nwinet at: 19-Jun-2001 7:12


From: "Richard Smolak"
> Will you make a port of /View for WinCE? I cannot find it in download > section. :-p
I have this character flaw. I learn a language best when someone is paying me to do something with it. Get Rebol on WinCE and I'd be learning fast! Of course, we've gone down this road before... Ken.

 [14/15] from: rishioswal:yaho:o at: 19-Jun-2001 13:40


yeah...i agree...would like to see view for handhelds...I am looking forward to the new sharp amiga de handheld computer that has strong arm processor. Rebol is already supported in this platform so it should work...wonder if they will ever port view to amiga de?? then view should also work for this device.. info on sharp device at: http://developer.sharpsec.com/ rishi --- Richard Smolak <[cyphre--volny--cz]> wrote:

 [15/15] from: john:schuhr at: 22-Jun-2001 16:44


I made an interesting observation about Squeak myself. At work I have a PIII-800/Win2K in which Squeak takes about 30 seconds to load, as you've experienced. However, at home I have a Cyrix-MII/333 with Win2K where Squeak loads in under 4 (four) seconds. Talk about defying logic.. *shrug* --John At 04:25 PM 6/18/2001 -0700, you wrote:

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