I would prefer a more Lisp-like way of compiling.
In Lisp compiling is only for gaining speed and make smaller
code-units. In Lisp - similar to REBOL - you can inspect the not native
functions at runtime. (in compiled code too!!)
So there compilation would be no real protection.
History shows that applications written in CommonLisp are solving
highly complex tasks e. g. the NASAs Pathfinder-Mission-Planning tool was
written in CommonLisp.
Although the code is accessible at runtime (and so somewhat "open")
CommonLisp applications are sold for huge amounts of money.
Yahoo has bought some months ago a CommonLisp application for
~50 Mio $
All customers using CommonLisp say they love the ability to change
code in a running application. This is also possible with REBOL and
we should not loose it through a compiling feature that hinders us in access
to compiled REBOL code.
Regards
Jochen Schmidt
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> > For stand-alone, shrink-wrapped client use, like RebMail, a email client,
>
> or
>
> > similar programs, I can imagine that a future Rebol product would a
> > Rebol/View or Rebol/Core that can be packaged with a number of encrypted
> > scripts into one executable binary. That seems fairly obvious to me. I've
> > also CC-ed this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] just in case the Rebol crew haven't
> > thought of it yet.
>
> I think some ideas were expressed for many times here on ml. I also think
> RT thought about it already, the question is if they will regard it being
> priority. Let's face it:
>
> Some time ago Carl mentioned something about partial compilation of certain
> expression. Just few weeks ago he thowed here one email stating something
> like why don't you guys use 'compile? Hey ;-) With no further explanation
> following, one can only guys Carl is somethin cooking on his notebook, or I
> just misuderstood the issue.
>
> Elan, in one of his last posts (as reaction to my email of disappointment),
> talked about slim binaries. If I am not wrong, slim binaries are kind of
> multiplatform binaries. New Amiga OS will have the same advantage. Once app
> will be in VP code, you can transfer the file between platforms. I don't
> know how efficient the solution could be with interpreted language, if it
> would be some kind of byte code or what, but could be interesting ...
>
> Then there is a possibility of REBOL runtime. Well, that's something I
> would like to see as the last option. Why? Because this way RT has to
> maintain another family of REBOL versions, limiting the language.
>
> I would like to see freedom of expression. E.g., some scripts (modules) in
> compiled form (slim "binary", byte-p-code, whatever), while end user
> ability to influence some of the other scripts (modules) ...
>
> Some one or two years ago, there was also talk about so called
> REBOL/Toolkit - REBOL in the form of libraries, embeddable into another
> language apps ...
>
>
> Cheers,
> -pekr-
>
> > Andrew Martin
> > ICQ: 26227169
> > http://members.ncbi.com/AndrewMartin/
> > http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
> > -><-
