Hello CArl, Carl at REBOL wrote:
>For those of you who are interested in trying new REBOL kernels... here's something >to test out. It's the Alpha release of REBOL/Base. > >Q: What is REBOL/Base? > >A: REBOL/Base is a reduction of REBOL/Core trimmed down to the essential native and >mezzanine functions and schemes. All protocols, help information, and functions are >stripped, but can be added back on an individual basis. > >Q: Why would REBOL Tech build such a thing? > >A: REBOL/Base is designed for developers who want to create minimal REBOL >environments and precisely control what functions they initialize. For instance, if >you only need SMTP or HTTP, why take the time and space to boot all the other >protocols? > Why would that be needed? CGI? CGI is outdated anyway ;-) What else ... PDAs, set-top-boxes, simply devices with limited resources? If so, sounds interesting .... > >Q: Why are we releasing an Alpha test version? > >A: The idea of a REBOL subset is new and contrary to our rule that REBOL executables >must include everything. We want to see what developers think of this idea. > Are you sure the idea is new? :-) I would even go further, stating that REBOL/Base should become real kernel, even for native mode stuff. Rebol components - not quite an new idea - we talked about it here several times already. I think that having everything in one .exe is not maintainable for Rebol future direction. What if there is need for .mp3 or .divx support? What if such support would require 300kb space? Will RT add it, or will RT say that it will not be added, as it would add significant increase to executable size? The problem becomes more evident with stuff like Rebol/player ... simply e.g. browser-plug-in like product. RT will release update (or just patch some bugs) - will clients be pushed to download whole new rebol.exe because of that? With current model - they will, and that's wrong aproach. Maybe not nowadays for 56k modem connection, but if you think of your mobile device and rebol.exe of some 1.5mb size - then it is. If I understand it correctly, rebol components as can be seen in system structure, are separated already ... what if I am not interested in /odbc, /library, /sound, etc? Why should those be in my rebol.exe and push my clients to download them if not needed? OTOH there should be some option to specify something like: if not component? 'sound [go-download-it!] Such aproach would even imo better allow RT to structure sales, prices, create some package combinations etc. If there is still someone scared of so called .dll hell, so RT introduced Rebol preprocessor to us. Simply put - create package of stuff you need and distribute as one file, if you need ... Carl, I would like to know your opinion on that, as that is the future of Rebol as I can see it. We can't refuse to support new technologies forever, just because it would add some space to our rebol.exe ;-) What do others think about it? >A: No. But, there will be a similar version of REBOL/View (as of yet unnamed, got any >ideas?). > > as above - go further - isolate View and other components of Rebol/Base and create real plug-in component architecture. Add ability to create packages for those who are scared of rebol being scattered over their hd ;-) -pekr- -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
