Hi Russ, you wrote: >I agree that a working TCP stack is not the problem. I see the "DOS user >base" issue quite differently, though. > >I'm not talking about people who actually run their PC with DOS as its O/S, >but embedded systems that can very nicely (and efficiently, >cost-effectively, etc) run from a DOS-type environment (both software and >hardware) in devices where the O/S is not even visible (or a concern) to the >user.... read "Internet Appliance" (set-top-box, etc etc etc). > >This IS in our future (see www.aplio.com for just one example), and to >simply equate it to ancient DOS machines is missing the implications of this >picture. Not all interesting/useful "networking" or "messaging" apps >require 32-bit machines (and Windows and graphics and O/S's and OVERHEAD) to >work effectively. Heck, I've done TCP/IP in an 8-bit micro w/o ANY O/S! How >I'd love to have REBOL (or a compiled version of a rebol application) in >there too :) For the sake of this discussion, perhaps it would be helpful to conceptually separate the REBOL/Core implementation of REBOL from the REBOL language (syntax and semantics)? Wouldn't an embedded REBOL implementation that includes a minimal set of OS functionility be a better route then porting a REBOL implementation that may include some unnecessary features to an operating system that also probably includes quite a few bytes of unnecessary code (overkill + overkill)? What could be safely left out of REBOL for an embedded solution and which features would have to be added in order to replace an OS? Elan
