> Yes, that's true. And that's the reason why I don't think that > REBOL/View should have DirectX support as some people suggested. Maybe > REBOL isn't fastest right now but there are other ways than using some > tricky proprietary API existing just for one platform.
I agree :) > I think each port of Rebol/View should get maximum from the possibilities of > the platform where is runnig. So why should REBOL use slow and ugly software > rendering on systems with great graphics power? Just to this point (and it's a good one). The JVM is a great example. Java Swing is a langauge-specific GUI rendering language, and it's the biggest RAM hog I have ever run into. The Compaq Armada I run at work chokes while running Swing-based app., and has anyone ever tried Limewire on OSX? Man. Slow-city. My point is that Rebol/View has broad platform support with a fast and fairly pleasing (and if not, we can make our own) GUI. I think it would be great to make us able to call DirectX or Quartz or ActiveX or what-have-you, but i don't want to see it built in, per se, as I think that would turn Rebol into bloatware. We already have enough bloatware. Yes to speed. No to bloat. Think small. Think fast. Build good software. Make people happy. sd -- --------------------------------- : sabin densmore : www.onegecko.com : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : irc: dal.net #rebol -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
