I believe the best option for the masses would be to just be able to make
native! those functions that expose the performance or characteristic of the
finished script. Seems the easiest approach and should accomplish the goal.
Maybe the make native! function would have some algorithm that unlock the
code that the programmer only knows. Do I sounds out of my mind here?
Paul Tretter
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 11:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [REBOL] Compiler for Rebol ? Re:(6)
> As long as his support for As long as his support for
> that environment doesn't that approach doesn't
> FORCE ME to use it when I FORCE ME to use it when I
> choose not to. choose not to.
Right, thats my opinion too, but by using compile to hide the source we
would
loose the ability to acces code at runtime of compiled code.
Coming from CommonLisp I think this would be very bad - we would
give away a really important feature!
> Carl's support for MS operating systems doesn't keep me from
> using any of several varieties of Unix/Linux (except Debian, but
> that's another issue!), MacOS, etc.
I never said something against this fact.
> > I hope this explaines a little bit more what I wanted to say.
>
> And, of course, all of the above discussion ignores other quite
> legitimate reasons for wanting some sort of pre-processed form
> of code: performance (which you mentioned in an earlier post),
> reduced run-time overhead (no need to parse/translate/compile,
> potentially fewer moving parts in the distributed product,
> potentially simpler set up, etc.), simpler/faster distribution
> ("object" is typically smaller than "source", making it faster
> to download/copy/install, etc.)
Yes that's the point!
_I_ would prefer using compilation (native, bytecode or whatever)
for making the code more efficient and smaller. But I do _not_ want to
loose runtime accessibility to the code.
Regards,
Jochen Schmidt
