Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Todd Higgins]

Hi Dave,
Please follow the link to  unsubscribe from this list.
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Todd

On May 5, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Dave Rousseau wrote:
Please stop sending me this junk email I do not know how or when I got 
hooked up to it, but please stop NOW!!

- Original Message - From: "Richard Gaskin" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "How to use Revolution" 
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev

--
Todd Higgins
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dave Rousseau]

Please stop sending me this junk email I do not know how or when I got 
hooked up to it, but please stop NOW!!

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Gaskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "How to use Revolution" 
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev


Marielle Lange wrote:
I had been poundering on that question before... why not merge Revolution 
with
Awk? Awk/Gawk is very small (200KB) and is the best program I know to 
rapidly
handle text (with rapid processing of string-indexed arrays of huge size 
and
fully fledge regular expression syntax). Revolution is the best program I 
know
to rapidly handle interface design and internet protocols.
I'll bet that would work quite well as an external
--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 __
 Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution 
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: To Rev or not to Rev

[MisterX]

Marielle,

with the GNU tools bin programs and cigwin tools, you can already do so via 
shell or launch. There's a zillion text manipulation tools out there.

But so far Rev is quite fast even for intricate parsing. Never fast enough
tough ;)

But a bridge would be welcome to avoid shell calls when they are really
necessary.
Over the years, i've added quite a few filter types into TAOO to do lots of
cleanups, conversions, translations and it's definitely easier in xtalk than
any other langage.

As soon as i publish the text manager of TAOO, you'll understand. But
there's plenty of other resources out there that have these text
utilities... Which reminds me i need to rebuild the catalog of calls,
handlers, defaults and functions available in TAOO - another nice parsing
browser! ;)

cheers
Xavier

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Richard Gaskin
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 15:16
> To: How to use Revolution
> Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
> 
> Marielle Lange wrote:
> > I had been poundering on that question before... why not merge 
> > Revolution with Awk? Awk/Gawk is very small (200KB) and is the best 
> > program I know to rapidly handle text (with rapid processing of 
> > string-indexed arrays of huge size and fully fledge regular 
> expression 
> > syntax). Revolution is the best program I know to rapidly 
> handle interface design and internet protocols.
> 
> I'll bet that would work quite well as an external
> 
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Media Corporation
>   __
>   Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Richard Gaskin]

Marielle Lange wrote:
I had been poundering on that question before... why not merge Revolution with
Awk? Awk/Gawk is very small (200KB) and is the best program I know to rapidly
handle text (with rapid processing of string-indexed arrays of huge size and
fully fledge regular expression syntax). Revolution is the best program I know
to rapidly handle interface design and internet protocols.
I'll bet that would work quite well as an external
--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 __
 Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Marielle Lange]

Hi Dennis,

There is a trade-off, there. As a researcher, it matters more that something
takes me 1 day rather 5 to progam. It does not matter that much that it takes 1
minute rather than 3 to run (I can always use it as an excuse for a coffee
break). What I frequently need to do is create word frequency tables for a 20MB
corpus by using frequency[tword] (with each word as a string). I have tried
different programming and scripting language and the one I sticked with was
gawk, a non GUI efficient text processor (like Perl, without the unlegible code
syntax). Not to be able to use a string as array index did put me off of Visual
Basic (I found solutions to bypass that but then the program needed 5 hours to
do what gawk could do in less than 20 min.). To be forced to declare the
dimension of the array beforehand put me off of C/C++/Java. One of the reason I
adopted Revolution is that I can construct a GUI (which awk cannot) and still
index my array with a string and don't have to know, in advance, the
approximate number of index values I will need (I was turning to Python and
wxPython just before I learned about Revolution).

I had been poundering on that question before... why not merge Revolution with
Awk? Awk/Gawk is very small (200KB) and is the best program I know to rapidly
handle text (with rapid processing of string-indexed arrays of huge size and
fully fledge regular expression syntax). Revolution is the best program I know
to rapidly handle interface design and internet protocols.

Marielle

>This BZ on arrays would be a welcome enhancement, but it would not
>improve the speed of processing arrays.  I was thinking along the
>lines of a high speed array processing instruction subset.  They
>would be less flexible than what we have now --the nice flexible data
>types, dynamic memory allocation, and flexible key names are what
>costs the operators so much time to execute.  Just let me define the
>dimensions and data size for a fixed memory allocation and provide
>operators that work on fixed data types.  It should fly through the
>array calculations at least ten times faster.  I just entered a BZ
>request for it.  If you agree, vote.

BZ# 2813
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: To Rev or not to Rev

[MisterX]

I swear I never meant any offense and as someone who gets his name
mispelled all the time (even the Bury part to top it), i understand the
problem. 

I'll be certain to watch this. But why share my stupidity with the list?
That's not very nice either. But at least it got the point through ;)

Honestly, I never saw the complains about it either... 
Mikey, a public apology for my deficiency of "sight"... 

It wont happen again.

cheers
Xavier

"Sorry, I just regained consciousness"
(seen on the back of an orange Pinto named Odie)


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Ray
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 01:42
> To: Use Revolution List
> Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
> 
> On 5/4/05 10:32 AM, "MisterX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Im sick of this non-sense - no offense to you Mickey...
> 
> Xavier... you *really* have to let up on the "c" key when 
> responding... The gentleman's name is Mikey, not Mickey, and 
> he has said that to you multiple times. My suggestion would 
> be that when you respond to his posts, that you double-check 
> your spelling before you submit it... otherwise you will 
> continue to offend him.
> 
> 
> Ken Ray
> Sons of Thunder Software
> Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Stephen Barncard]

amen! I used to take Tom Pittman's advice for Compilit and use his 
notation for integers - % and they screamed with speed... and the old 
Hyperbasic XCMD generator had great array capabilities. I don't mind 
typing variables optionally if it speeds up things.

sqb
At 7:30 PM -0400 5/4/05, Dennis Brown wrote:
This BZ on arrays would be a welcome enhancement, but it would not 
improve the speed of processing arrays.  I was thinking along the 
lines of a high speed array processing instruction subset.  They 
would be less flexible than what we have now --the nice flexible 
data types, dynamic memory allocation, and flexible key names are 
what costs the operators so much time to execute.  Just let me 
define the dimensions and data size for a fixed memory allocation 
and provide operators that work on fixed data types.  It should fly 
through the array calculations at least ten times faster.  I just 
entered a BZ request for it.  If you agree, vote.

BZ# 2813
Dennis
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dennis Brown]

Pierre,
I am quite aware of these, and that is what I want to run 10 times  
faster than.  However, a lot can be done with the repeat for each  
more quickly than other Rev methods, but it can only be used with a  
single named array at a time.  I have entered a BZ request for an  
additional sequential array access method to give repeat for each  
speeds to any number of arrays at the same time.  If you would like  
to see this, cast your vote for BZ# 2773

Dennis
On May 4, 2005, at 7:42 PM, Pierre Sahores wrote:
Be aware to see how combining the "repeat for each" statement (read- 
only) and the rev two-dimmensions arrays can be very usefull and  
fast running, lots faster than many well formated SQL queries, for  
an exemple...

Hope this can help,

This BZ on arrays would be a welcome enhancement, but it would not  
improve the speed of processing arrays.  I was thinking along the  
lines of a high speed array processing instruction subset.  They  
would be less flexible than what we have now --the nice flexible  
data types, dynamic memory allocation, and flexible key names are  
what costs the operators so much time to execute.  Just let me  
define the dimensions and data size for a fixed memory allocation  
and provide operators that work on fixed data types.  It should  
fly through the array calculations at least ten times faster.  I  
just entered a BZ request for it.  If you agree, vote.

BZ# 2813
Dennis
On May 4, 2005, at 3:13 PM, MisterX wrote:

the question mark made it red!!!
 <http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555>
works better ;)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Gaskin
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 21:08
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
Gordon Webster wrote:

I totally agree with Dennis. Efficient arrays are the

missing link in

rev.

<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555?>
--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  __
  Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

--
Bien cordialement, Pierre Sahores
100, rue de Paris
F - 77140 Nemours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GSM:   +33 6 03 95 77 70
Pro:  +33 1 64 45 05 33
Fax:  +33 1 64 45 05 33
<http://www.sahores-conseil.com/>
WEB/VoD/ACID-DB services over IP
"Mutualiser les deltas de productivité"
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Ken Ray]

On 5/4/05 10:32 AM, "MisterX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Im sick of this non-sense - no offense to you Mickey...

Xavier... you *really* have to let up on the "c" key when responding... The
gentleman's name is Mikey, not Mickey, and he has said that to you multiple
times. My suggestion would be that when you respond to his posts, that you
double-check your spelling before you submit it... otherwise you will
continue to offend him.


Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Pierre Sahores]

Be aware to see how combining the "repeat for each" statement 
(read-only) and the rev two-dimmensions arrays can be very usefull and 
fast running, lots faster than many well formated SQL queries, for an 
exemple...

Hope this can help,
This BZ on arrays would be a welcome enhancement, but it would not 
improve the speed of processing arrays.  I was thinking along the 
lines of a high speed array processing instruction subset.  They would 
be less flexible than what we have now --the nice flexible data types, 
dynamic memory allocation, and flexible key names are what costs the 
operators so much time to execute.  Just let me define the dimensions 
and data size for a fixed memory allocation and provide operators that 
work on fixed data types.  It should fly through the array 
calculations at least ten times faster.  I just entered a BZ request 
for it.  If you agree, vote.

BZ# 2813
Dennis
On May 4, 2005, at 3:13 PM, MisterX wrote:
the question mark made it red!!!
 <http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555>
works better ;)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Gaskin
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 21:08
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
Gordon Webster wrote:
I totally agree with Dennis. Efficient arrays are the
missing link in
rev.
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555?>
--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  __
  Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

--
Bien cordialement, Pierre Sahores
100, rue de Paris
F - 77140 Nemours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GSM:   +33 6 03 95 77 70
Pro:  +33 1 64 45 05 33
Fax:  +33 1 64 45 05 33
<http://www.sahores-conseil.com/>
WEB/VoD/ACID-DB services over IP
"Mutualiser les deltas de productivité"
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dennis Brown]

This BZ on arrays would be a welcome enhancement, but it would not  
improve the speed of processing arrays.  I was thinking along the  
lines of a high speed array processing instruction subset.  They  
would be less flexible than what we have now --the nice flexible data  
types, dynamic memory allocation, and flexible key names are what  
costs the operators so much time to execute.  Just let me define the  
dimensions and data size for a fixed memory allocation and provide  
operators that work on fixed data types.  It should fly through the  
array calculations at least ten times faster.  I just entered a BZ  
request for it.  If you agree, vote.

BZ# 2813
Dennis
On May 4, 2005, at 3:13 PM, MisterX wrote:
the question mark made it red!!!
 <http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555>
works better ;)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Gaskin
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 21:08
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
Gordon Webster wrote:
I totally agree with Dennis. Efficient arrays are the
missing link in
rev.
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555?>
--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  __
  Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Brian Yennie]

Xavier,
It's true, you can implement object-oriented concepts in Transcript, 
but that doesn't make it an object-oriented language.
You can write OO code in C - just implement C++ first and go from 
there, but that doesn't make C an OO environment.

The argument that you can get many of the benefits (and take some of 
the same tactics) in Rev as with true OO environments has merit, IMO, 
but saying that Revolution is OO is just taking liberty with the 
definition of Object-Oriented. Sure if you reinterpret the term based 
on what you think it should mean, you end up in one place- but if you 
associate "OO" with it's strict definition you're up a creek.

- Brian
Im sick of this non-sense - no offense to you Mickey...
Object oriented "technology" is just any way to refer semantically via 
a
programming language to operate on "generic" objects or objects 
derived from
those.

RR doesn't have a memory model but it's possible to create it with easy
commands.
And I'll quote Grady Booch "it is therefore the task of the developer 
to
distribute such behaviors so that they may be combined in interesting 
ways,
giving rise to the 'self-maintaining fire' that is the mark of a 
profound oo
architecture." Pg 167 The Best of Booch (Sigs Reference Library - 
Cambridge
Univ. Press)

Patterns, templates, polymorph*, abstraction, classes and all the rest 
are
just a matter of imagination or interpretation. If the "engine" doesn't
support the abstraction, you write it. If they dont support 
polimorph*, you
branch it. ez!

In Forth, it's like in C, you add a layer ++. Java, and others have 
it...
RunRev - doesn't have the abstraction? They do, but they is literally 
no
array handling to speak of compared to other mainstream languages. 
It's nice
to keep things easy but it makes the use and adaptability very weak 
IMOHO.
Sorry, it's reality...

In forth or c you could develop libraries to handle arrays with little
performance hits. In RunRev, it's another story...
With one exception... If a background behavior group is considered a 
class,
and a card in this group is an object then you jump one step ahead of 
any
other environment.

So... That's the TAOO object model base for data storage. It also 
works in
SQL or any other classic memory storage (arrays, folder/files, FMP 
layouts,
etc...)

My 2 TAOOcentric cents...
Critiques are welcome naturally!
Cheers
Xav
http://monsieurx.com/taoo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Geoff Canyon
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 16:44
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
On May 2, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
On May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:

I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently --
there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but the
inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.
Forth is not really a high level language any more than assembler
is.  It is an alternative machine language based on a double stack
architecture.   There have been hardware implementations of Forth
as the native machine instruction set.  When emulated, the "Code"
just consists of a list of addresses to the actual machine
code for
the native functions, or addresses of  "higher level" defined
function (uses a flag bit to tell which).  This makes it execute
much faster than "byte code".  You can implement a higher level
language within the syntax of Forth because of its extensible
nature.  "Words" are defined from other words in an interpretive
environment.  Because of the double stack architecture, data
arguments are passed and returned on one stack and return
addresses
are in the other stack.  It makes a very efficient and powerful
architecture for developing real time machine controllers with a
tiny amount of memory.  You are free to define "words" that
implement an OO environment if you choose.  You could even create
Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an operating system
for that matter.
I understand how Forth works. I'm just not sure how I would
categorize it. On further reflection, I would say that Forth is
functional in about the same way that Revolution is Object-Oriented.
In other words, loosely. ;-)
I disagree that Forth is no more high-level than assembler is. The
built-in extensibility of Forth syntax makes it much more
than just a
convenient way of handling machine language.
gc
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: To Rev or not to Rev

[MisterX]

the question mark made it red!!!

 <http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555>

works better ;)

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Richard Gaskin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 21:08
> To: How to use Revolution
> Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
> 
> Gordon Webster wrote:
> > I totally agree with Dennis. Efficient arrays are the 
> missing link in 
> > rev.
> 
> <http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=555?>
> 
> 
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Media Corporation
>   __
>   Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Richard Gaskin]

Gordon Webster wrote:
I totally agree with Dennis. Efficient arrays are the
missing link in rev.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 __
 Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Gordon Webster]

I totally agree with Dennis. Efficient arrays are the
missing link in rev.

Gordon


--- Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On May 4, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
> 
> > On May 2, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not
> OO (inherently --  
> >>> there are OO implementations). It's procedural,
> certainly, but  
> >>> the inherent stack gives it a definite
> functional feel.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Forth is not really a high level language any
> more than assembler  
> >> is.  It is an alternative machine language based
> on a double stack  
> >> architecture.   There have been hardware
> implementations of Forth  
> >> as the native machine instruction set.  When
> emulated, the "Code"  
> >> just consists of a list of addresses to the
> actual machine code  
> >> for the native functions, or addresses of 
> "higher level" defined  
> >> function (uses a flag bit to tell which).  This
> makes it execute  
> >> much faster than "byte code".  You can implement
> a higher level  
> >> language within the syntax of Forth because of
> its extensible  
> >> nature.  "Words" are defined from other words in
> an interpretive  
> >> environment.  Because of the double stack
> architecture, data  
> >> arguments are passed and returned on one stack
> and return  
> >> addresses are in the other stack.  It makes a
> very efficient and  
> >> powerful architecture for developing real time
> machine controllers  
> >> with a tiny amount of memory.  You are free to
> define "words" that  
> >> implement an OO environment if you choose.  You
> could even create  
> >> Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an
> operating system  
> >> for that matter.
> >>
> >
> > I understand how Forth works. I'm just not sure
> how I would  
> > categorize it. On further reflection, I would say
> that Forth is  
> > functional in about the same way that Revolution
> is Object- 
> > Oriented. In other words, loosely. ;-)
> >
> > I disagree that Forth is no more high-level than
> assembler is. The  
> > built-in extensibility of Forth syntax makes it
> much more than just  
> > a convenient way of handling machine language.
> 
> I was referring to the "native" instruction words as
> being like  
> assembler.  In fact now days, microprocessors like
> the G5 etc. have  
> much higher level functionality than Forth.  Just as
> you can write  
> macros in assembler that implement a pseudo higher
> level language of  
> your design, Forth gives the same ability in a very
> convenient  
> defined way.  I liked Forth a lot twenty years ago
> when I was playing  
> with it.  If one were to redesign it again today, a
> much more robust  
> set of native words could be created for modern
> microprocessors and  
> methods.  But I have found that the UI is really 90%
> of programming  
> these days, and for that you can't beat Rev.  I just
> want fast fixed  
> type array processing for the other 10% of the
> program with a  
> seamless interface between the two.  Rev is plenty
> fast for most  
> stuff, but an order of magnitude too slow for the
> array stuff.
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
>
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 

:: Gordon Webster ::
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: To Rev or not to Rev

[MisterX]

Im sick of this non-sense - no offense to you Mickey...

Object oriented "technology" is just any way to refer semantically via a
programming language to operate on "generic" objects or objects derived from
those.

RR doesn't have a memory model but it's possible to create it with easy
commands. 

And I'll quote Grady Booch "it is therefore the task of the developer to
distribute such behaviors so that they may be combined in interesting ways,
giving rise to the 'self-maintaining fire' that is the mark of a profound oo
architecture." Pg 167 The Best of Booch (Sigs Reference Library - Cambridge
Univ. Press)

Patterns, templates, polymorph*, abstraction, classes and all the rest are
just a matter of imagination or interpretation. If the "engine" doesn't
support the abstraction, you write it. If they dont support polimorph*, you
branch it. ez!

In Forth, it's like in C, you add a layer ++. Java, and others have it...
RunRev - doesn't have the abstraction? They do, but they is literally no
array handling to speak of compared to other mainstream languages. It's nice
to keep things easy but it makes the use and adaptability very weak IMOHO.
Sorry, it's reality...

In forth or c you could develop libraries to handle arrays with little
performance hits. In RunRev, it's another story...

With one exception... If a background behavior group is considered a class,
and a card in this group is an object then you jump one step ahead of any
other environment. 

So... That's the TAOO object model base for data storage. It also works in
SQL or any other classic memory storage (arrays, folder/files, FMP layouts,
etc...)

My 2 TAOOcentric cents...

Critiques are welcome naturally!

Cheers
Xav
http://monsieurx.com/taoo

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Geoff Canyon
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 16:44
> To: How to use Revolution
> Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
> 
> On May 2, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
> 
> > On May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently -- 
> >> there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but the 
> >> inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.
> >>
> >
> > Forth is not really a high level language any more than assembler  
> > is.  It is an alternative machine language based on a double stack  
> > architecture.   There have been hardware implementations of Forth  
> > as the native machine instruction set.  When emulated, the "Code"  
> > just consists of a list of addresses to the actual machine 
> code for  
> > the native functions, or addresses of  "higher level" defined  
> > function (uses a flag bit to tell which).  This makes it execute  
> > much faster than "byte code".  You can implement a higher level  
> > language within the syntax of Forth because of its extensible  
> > nature.  "Words" are defined from other words in an interpretive  
> > environment.  Because of the double stack architecture, data  
> > arguments are passed and returned on one stack and return 
> addresses  
> > are in the other stack.  It makes a very efficient and powerful  
> > architecture for developing real time machine controllers with a  
> > tiny amount of memory.  You are free to define "words" that  
> > implement an OO environment if you choose.  You could even create  
> > Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an operating system  
> > for that matter.
> 
> I understand how Forth works. I'm just not sure how I would  
> categorize it. On further reflection, I would say that Forth is  
> functional in about the same way that Revolution is Object-Oriented.  
> In other words, loosely. ;-)
> 
> I disagree that Forth is no more high-level than assembler is. The  
> built-in extensibility of Forth syntax makes it much more 
> than just a  
> convenient way of handling machine language.
> 
> gc
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dennis Brown]

On May 4, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
On May 2, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:

On May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:

I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently --  
there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but  
the inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.


Forth is not really a high level language any more than assembler  
is.  It is an alternative machine language based on a double stack  
architecture.   There have been hardware implementations of Forth  
as the native machine instruction set.  When emulated, the "Code"  
just consists of a list of addresses to the actual machine code  
for the native functions, or addresses of  "higher level" defined  
function (uses a flag bit to tell which).  This makes it execute  
much faster than "byte code".  You can implement a higher level  
language within the syntax of Forth because of its extensible  
nature.  "Words" are defined from other words in an interpretive  
environment.  Because of the double stack architecture, data  
arguments are passed and returned on one stack and return  
addresses are in the other stack.  It makes a very efficient and  
powerful architecture for developing real time machine controllers  
with a tiny amount of memory.  You are free to define "words" that  
implement an OO environment if you choose.  You could even create  
Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an operating system  
for that matter.

I understand how Forth works. I'm just not sure how I would  
categorize it. On further reflection, I would say that Forth is  
functional in about the same way that Revolution is Object- 
Oriented. In other words, loosely. ;-)

I disagree that Forth is no more high-level than assembler is. The  
built-in extensibility of Forth syntax makes it much more than just  
a convenient way of handling machine language.
I was referring to the "native" instruction words as being like  
assembler.  In fact now days, microprocessors like the G5 etc. have  
much higher level functionality than Forth.  Just as you can write  
macros in assembler that implement a pseudo higher level language of  
your design, Forth gives the same ability in a very convenient  
defined way.  I liked Forth a lot twenty years ago when I was playing  
with it.  If one were to redesign it again today, a much more robust  
set of native words could be created for modern microprocessors and  
methods.  But I have found that the UI is really 90% of programming  
these days, and for that you can't beat Rev.  I just want fast fixed  
type array processing for the other 10% of the program with a  
seamless interface between the two.  Rev is plenty fast for most  
stuff, but an order of magnitude too slow for the array stuff.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Geoff Canyon]

On May 2, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
On May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:

I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently --  
there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but the  
inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.

Forth is not really a high level language any more than assembler  
is.  It is an alternative machine language based on a double stack  
architecture.   There have been hardware implementations of Forth  
as the native machine instruction set.  When emulated, the "Code"  
just consists of a list of addresses to the actual machine code for  
the native functions, or addresses of  "higher level" defined  
function (uses a flag bit to tell which).  This makes it execute  
much faster than "byte code".  You can implement a higher level  
language within the syntax of Forth because of its extensible  
nature.  "Words" are defined from other words in an interpretive  
environment.  Because of the double stack architecture, data  
arguments are passed and returned on one stack and return addresses  
are in the other stack.  It makes a very efficient and powerful  
architecture for developing real time machine controllers with a  
tiny amount of memory.  You are free to define "words" that  
implement an OO environment if you choose.  You could even create  
Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an operating system  
for that matter.
I understand how Forth works. I'm just not sure how I would  
categorize it. On further reflection, I would say that Forth is  
functional in about the same way that Revolution is Object-Oriented.  
In other words, loosely. ;-)

I disagree that Forth is no more high-level than assembler is. The  
built-in extensibility of Forth syntax makes it much more than just a  
convenient way of handling machine language.

gc
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[James Spencer]

On May 2, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
Setting those aside, Rev lacks several characteristics most people  
consider inherent to OO. That doesn't make it bad or good,  
necessarily.

When this thread started, my reaction was because of these missing  
characteristics, I would have said that Rev is not OO except in a way  
that doesn't reflect the general benefits of OOP.  But the more I  
think about it, with the benefit of the comments here, I've come to  
the conclusion that while it is missing some OO characteristics, it  
also possesses some very significant features that are missing from  
languages that are considered (at least by some) to be more  
traditionally OO.  Specifically, the more I use Objective C with its  
dynamic messaging, which is very similar in many ways to Rev's  
messaging, the more I realize C++'s lacks in this regard.  For  
another example, one cannot write handlers except in the context of  
an object: an instance of a button, a group, a card, a stack, or  
whatever; it simply doesn't permit non-OO programming.

Having said all that, it really doesn't matter and as you say, none  
of this is, in itself, good or bad.  Rev (and it's related  
environments such as HC, SC, etc.) can't even be analyzed using  
traditional computer science analysis.  It's just different which is  
what makes it so damn great!

Spence
James P. Spencer
Rochester, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Badges??  We don't need no stinkin badges!"
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: To Rev or not to Rev + OOP TAOO tech

[MisterX]

> [x'ed]
>  You are free to define "words" 
> that implement an OO environment if you choose.  You could 
> even create Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an 
> operating system for that matter.
> 
> Dennis

I like your way of saying it... 

That's exactly what I've done with xtalk in TAOO, XOS, ObjX, 
the Referencer stacks,... all these years!

As Richard said, Object based... Do i need polymorphism? Nope,
i can handle it myself much better! Do i need inheritance? I
can force it anytime, anyway i want. Do I need object structures?
I got cards with the most complex and visual structures you 
could ever ask for from a textual IDE! 

If you really want to dwelve into OOPs, there's a huge field
of CS advanced books on the matter from language design to
process architecture to compiler stuff, etc... I tried it
all and none, really, none was the bible except maybe all in
part. You name the language, i checked it out. Even scriptX.

Great stuff, but can it be faster for development?

In the real world, you have to process objects for clients. 

FileMaker is the best for most business purposes - all in one.
The hell, the finder/Explorer + any text editor will do too! 

It's a matter of seeing the "objects"... Filemaker will make
the sums and reports while in the hell you do it yourself!

Realistically, RunRev, can do it without any intervention in
the best cases. Filemaker will cough, cough... OK, Applescripts
can help. But it's not a totally Filemaker only thing then...

Single points of failures are to be minimized!
And RunRev can do it all... 
But does it scale up? Not unless you have a real strategy or
optimum "fixed" object structure/code... That's always true
and that's when objects are less important...

If speed or graphics were not a problem sometimes, RunRev could
do it all actually... 

But thanks to externals that's quickly bridged between any
low-end or new-to-come APIs of the OS, anything is 
possible! And Chipp is one the best examples here I might add.

Was it done it OPP? Does it matter? In the end, it's it does it
business on it's objects the right way. Can I access it's 
objects? Can I modify them? :) Objects...

90% thinking, 10% scripting - that's how I see it!
Remember that 90% thinking = 1/1000 the 10% scripting in time!

So now im coming to the conclusion of the TAOO environment and
got a really really sweet set of tools. The OOP in it is like 
you said: a question of wording... After you get the hang of 
the wording (nothing hard!), and your libraries work with it, 
you'll see that things start to work by themselves! Usually 
with just a one-liner ;)

So if you are interested in an object called TAOO with a frame-
work of objects in objects without any need of fancy object.obj
notation... Let me know, i got it down to a science/slang now ;)

We all know there's always a trade off ;)

No joke. What can it do for you? Choose a [meaninful] verb...
It will find the object and function for it. It's programming
language/ide/file format independent too and anything you add to it becomes
part of the whole! So you see, after 15 years (or more) it's been gathering
quite a lot of skills... And any GUI is possible in terms of objects...

More importantly, and in relation to "a picture is worth a 1000 words",
visual objects in TAOO have a wording to them that makes them "aware"
(Jean-Claude Van Dam style ;)... That's the key to making the system work
not just as a oop-library but also as a "live" visual oop environment. 

So the Visual Object language is another place where I've put in a lot of
"evolution" - which someone mistook for "bug-fixing". I did and got a lots
more in return than expected and each version is less bugs all across the
TAOO script-nation! The language works with the controls via all types of
front/back or stackinuse scripts depending on the "object" layers. 

Now running on both Rev and MC too including all N2O tools ;)

The event Hierarchy is managed both locally and globally. The hierarchical
layers are like objects in objects. Or templates in objects, and vice versa.
There's no limits that I know of others than IDE over-loading. It works for
my new GM (called GIM - Graphical Interface Manager). There's always an
easier solution when it comes down to that like object-layer masters
(frontscript or backscript), managers(backscript or stackinuse), agents
(palette or stackinuse), etc 

For example, take a TAOO object "contact" which is just a group with a bunch
fields as Contact databases contain. It could be data from a file, db, sql,
or in cards, it doesn't matter. This Contact object, can be copy-pasted into
any other stack's object background and add "contact" features to the said
application! That's the relativism and relationalism of objects in the Art
of Objects - there isn't any - it's all there is!

I've released a part of it in a secret place of MonsieurX
Those interested... You know what to do.

And it's proudly made in RunRev! ;)

Cheers
Xavier
--
http:/

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Richard Gaskin]

While xTalk does use objects, it doesn't support the full range of 
features formally associated with the term "object-oriented programming" 
- from wikipedia:

   In computer science, Object-oriented programming,
   OOP for short, is a computer programming style
   that emphasizes the following concepts:
  * Objects - Packaging data and functionality
together into units within a running computer
program; objects are the basis of modularity
and structure in an object-oriented computer program.
  * Abstraction - The ability for a program to ignore
some aspects of the information that it is
manipulating, i.e. the ability to focus on the essential.
  * Encapsulation - Ensures that users of an object
cannot change the internal state of the object in
unexpected ways; only the object's own internal
methods are allowed to access its state. Each object
exposes an interface that specifies how other objects
may interact with it.
  * Polymorphism via message sending. Instead of
subroutine calls, object-oriented languages can make
message sends; the specific method which responds to
a message send depends on what specific object the
message is sent to. This gains polymorphism, because
a single variable in the program text can hold different
kinds of objects as the program runs, and thus the same
program text can invoke different methods at different
times in the same execution. To contrast, functional
languages gain polymorphism through the use of first-class
functions.
  * Inheritance- Organizes and facilitates polymorphism and
encapsulation by permitting objects to be defined and
created that are specialized types of already-existing
objects - these can share (and extend) their behavior
without having to reimplement that behavior.

For this reason I've always preferred the term John Dowdell of 
Macromedia uses to distinguish xTalks from true OOPSes:  "object based". 
 It still lets you swing the term "object" with a certain cache, while 
satisfying the formalists who require all of the above features to 
consider a language truly OOP.

That said, I believe that well-written xTalk delivers most of the 
productivity benefits of OOP, sufficiently that there is a good argument 
for using xTalk regardless of which computer terms best describe its 
classification.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 __
 Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Pierre Sahores]

Geoff and All,
And in about polymorphism... : HC and REV are full able to let us 
design any complexes recursive procedures we can need inside our 
xtalk's apps, even in using polymorhism, hash-tables stuffs and so 
on...

Best, Pierre
Le 2 mai 05, à 16:28, Geoff Canyon a écrit :
I think by that classification Rev _is_ object-oriented: 
"ObjectOrientedProgramming. A program execution is regarded as a 
physical model, simulating the behavior of either a real or imaginary 
part of the world." Sounds like Rev to me.

Nevertheless, I always refer people to another quote on the same web 
site -- Ward Cunningham's regarding HyperCard and OO: "Sure HyperCard 
is object oriented. You just don't get to pick the objects."

Setting those aside, Rev lacks several characteristics most people 
consider inherent to OO. That doesn't make it bad or good, 
necessarily.

On Apr 30, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
A quick Google search reveals this, which may be helpful as far as 
classification of languages:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NygaardClassification
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dan Shafer]

Yeah, the *implementation* of Forth I tried to learn used frames as  
objects and approached OO in some key ways as I recall. OF course, I  
have blissfully forgotten all that in the dream of the Dreamcard  
Revolution. ;-)

On May 2, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
On May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:

I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently --  
there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but the  
inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.

Forth is not really a high level language any more than assembler  
is.  It is an alternative machine language based on a double stack  
architecture.   There have been hardware implementations of Forth  
as the native machine instruction set.  When emulated, the "Code"  
just consists of a list of addresses to the actual machine code for  
the native functions, or addresses of  "higher level" defined  
function (uses a flag bit to tell which).  This makes it execute  
much faster than "byte code".  You can implement a higher level  
language within the syntax of Forth because of its extensible  
nature.  "Words" are defined from other words in an interpretive  
environment.  Because of the double stack architecture, data  
arguments are passed and returned on one stack and return addresses  
are in the other stack.  It makes a very efficient and powerful  
architecture for developing real time machine controllers with a  
tiny amount of memory.  You are free to define "words" that  
implement an OO environment if you choose.  You could even create  
Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an operating system  
for that matter.

Dennis
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


~~
Dan Shafer, Co-Chair
RevConWest '05
June 17-18, 2005, Monterey, California
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit/RevConWest
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dennis Brown]

On May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently -- 
there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but the 
inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.
Forth is not really a high level language any more than assembler is.  
It is an alternative machine language based on a double stack 
architecture.   There have been hardware implementations of Forth as 
the native machine instruction set.  When emulated, the "Code" just 
consists of a list of addresses to the actual machine code for the 
native functions, or addresses of  "higher level" defined function 
(uses a flag bit to tell which).  This makes it execute much faster 
than "byte code".  You can implement a higher level language within the 
syntax of Forth because of its extensible nature.  "Words" are defined 
from other words in an interpretive environment.  Because of the double 
stack architecture, data arguments are passed and returned on one stack 
and return addresses are in the other stack.  It makes a very efficient 
and powerful architecture for developing real time machine controllers 
with a tiny amount of memory.  You are free to define "words" that 
implement an OO environment if you choose.  You could even create Rev 
using this as the lower level "P code", or an operating system for that 
matter.

Dennis
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Geoff Canyon]

I think by that classification Rev _is_ object-oriented:  
"ObjectOrientedProgramming. A program execution is regarded as a  
physical model, simulating the behavior of either a real or imaginary  
part of the world." Sounds like Rev to me.

Nevertheless, I always refer people to another quote on the same web  
site -- Ward Cunningham's regarding HyperCard and OO: "Sure HyperCard  
is object oriented. You just don't get to pick the objects."

Setting those aside, Rev lacks several characteristics most people  
consider inherent to OO. That doesn't make it bad or good, necessarily.

On Apr 30, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
A quick Google search reveals this, which may be helpful as far as  
classification of languages:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NygaardClassification
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Geoff Canyon]

LISP is purely functional, not object-oriented. There are OO  
libraries for LISP, but many on the LISP side of things look down on  
them.

I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently --  
there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but the  
inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.

On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Dan Shafer wrote:
Forth is one of two programming languages I have tried to learn  
with complete lack of success. The other is LISP. Both are object- 
oriented (at least Forth is in some implementations and LISP is  
purely).
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Jim Carwardine]

Thank you all for a very interesting thread.  It clarified a lot for me and
many others I'm sure.  Although I've been in the IT industry since 1967 (my
first computer experience was on an IBM 3070), I took up programming again,
after an 8 year hiatus, when I bought a Mac Plus with HC in 1985.  Since
then, I've used only HC and now Rev so my "exposure" to classical OOP was
missing.  Comments like the one my ISP gave indicated a structural as well
as philosophical  difference in thinking.  Thanks, again... Jim

on 4/30/05 7:36 PM, Derek Bump wrote:

>> As someone already said, your ISP answer is a way to avoid any depth
>> analysis of Rev capabilities... It's also the usual answer from ppl who
>> usually struggle with complex programing environments and who are
>> bitter to see other ppl developping sophisticated apps 2 to 5 times
> faster...
> 
> I agree with this, as I at one time did it myself (I'm so ashamed).  I'm
> a straight HTML coder, and nothing drove me more crazy than seeing
> someone use FrontPage or Dreamweaver to develop a web site.  The
> scenario is just the same as someone writing a C++ app in 1 month and me
> writing the same app with Rev in just a few days.  A little animosity.
> 
> I now more or less don't care what one uses to develop a program, just
> as long as the final "result" is a decent program that is creative and
> solves a problem.
> 
> And though I don't understand OOP, I do appreciate you fine folks trying
> to explain it to me.  I guess I am forever convinced that xTalk is as
> object oriented as a language can get
> 
>   put key in ignition
>   rotate key 120 degrees
>   rotate key -120 degrees
>   apply pressure to accelerator
>   --  It all just "looks" like objects to me :)
> 
> 
> Derek Bump
> Dreamscape Software
> http://www.dreamscapesoftware.com/
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

-- 

OYF is... Highly resourceful people working together.


Own Your Future Consulting Services Limited,
1959 Upper Water Street, Suite 407, Halifax, Nova Scotia. B3J 3N2
Phone: 902-823-2339. Fax: 902-823-2139

What¹s New...

* Have you ever hired an employee who didn¹t work out?

* Did you do that on purpose?

Probably not...

If you want to greatly improve your hiring process,
 check out our new hiring process... www.HiringSmart.ca/ns

  and...
www.KeepingTheBest.ca/ns 



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Derek Bump]

> As someone already said, your ISP answer is a way to avoid any depth
> analysis of Rev capabilities... It's also the usual answer from ppl who
> usually struggle with complex programing environments and who are
> bitter to see other ppl developping sophisticated apps 2 to 5 times 
faster...

I agree with this, as I at one time did it myself (I'm so ashamed).  I'm 
a straight HTML coder, and nothing drove me more crazy than seeing 
someone use FrontPage or Dreamweaver to develop a web site.  The 
scenario is just the same as someone writing a C++ app in 1 month and me 
writing the same app with Rev in just a few days.  A little animosity.

I now more or less don't care what one uses to develop a program, just 
as long as the final "result" is a decent program that is creative and 
solves a problem.

And though I don't understand OOP, I do appreciate you fine folks trying 
to explain it to me.  I guess I am forever convinced that xTalk is as 
object oriented as a language can get

   put key in ignition
   rotate key 120 degrees
   rotate key -120 degrees
   apply pressure to accelerator
   --  It all just "looks" like objects to me :)
Derek Bump
Dreamscape Software
http://www.dreamscapesoftware.com/
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dan Shafer]

I used to feel this way. And I don't code in Java myself, preferring 
Python when Rev won't do. But the latest changes to Java and the 
brilliant IDEs (e.g., Eclipse) and widget toolkits (e.g., 
Windowbuildedr Pro), have really streamlined the dev process. OTOH, 
it's still Java, which is syntactically far too much like C/C++ for my 
personal taste.

But when a client needed an app that did stuff nobody I could find 
could figure out how to do in Rev without a LOT of coding while there 
were dozens of Java libraries available for each of those tasks, I 
realized why a lot of people choose Java, Python and other languages 
with great third-party (and mostly free) libraries.

On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:55 PM, James Spencer wrote:
IMHO, for things that Rev is not good for, I would use almost anything 
rather than Java which I don't much care for
~~
Dan Shafer, Co-Chair
RevConWest '05
June 17-18, 2005, Monterey, California
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit/RevConWest
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[James Spencer]

On Apr 30, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
But that's moot. Nobody's going to do either. Java is good for some  
things for which Rev is not suited (mostly apps requiring lots of  
interaction with system-level resources and multi-programmer  
projects) and Rev is good for some things for which Java is either  
overkill or cumbersome (almost everything else...LOL).

Amen.  Everytime I see one of these "language wars" start up I'm  
always amazed that folks have forgotten that these are TOOLS and like  
hardware tools, each tool has certain jobs that it is best suited  
for.  There are lots of different hammers out there but I would not  
use a tack hammer for the same job that I would use an 8 lb maul.   
That does not mean that a tack hammer is better or worse than a  
maul.  (This is not to say there are personal preferences; IMHO, for  
things that Rev is not good for, I would use almost anything rather  
than Java which I don't much care for.)

Spence
James P. Spencer
Rochester, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Badges??  We don't need no stinkin badges!"
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dan Shafer]

I suggest it's the other way around.
One could write a Transcript interpreter and IDE to duplicate that of 
Revolution in Java or Smalltalk, e.g., but it would be all but 
impossible to write a Java compiler or interpreter and IDE in 
Transcript.

But that's moot. Nobody's going to do either. Java is good for some 
things for which Rev is not suited (mostly apps requiring lots of 
interaction with system-level resources and multi-programmer projects) 
and Rev is good for some things for which Java is either overkill or 
cumbersome (almost everything else...LOL).

On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Jim Carwardine wrote:
So, in summary, Rev can create an OOP, but an OOP can't create Rev... 
Jim

~~
Dan Shafer, Co-Chair
RevConWest '05
June 17-18, 2005, Monterey, California
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit/RevConWest
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dan Shafer]

I couldn't resist jumping into this one just briefly.
Forth is one of two programming languages I have tried to learn with 
complete lack of success. The other is LISP. Both are object-oriented 
(at least Forth is in some implementations and LISP is purely). I'm an 
object thinker but these two languages have syntaxes that get in my 
way. Others, I know, find them quite natural. That's why we have so 
many langauges!

On Apr 30, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
Forth is still alive and well today.
~~
Dan Shafer, Co-Chair
RevConWest '05
June 17-18, 2005, Monterey, California
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit/RevConWest
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dan Shafer]

On Apr 30, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Derek Bump wrote:
> "it is more of scripting language that a real programming language ­ 
which
> is awesome for the non-technical developers like me and you, but is 
not a
> true object oriented application language which is being taught in
> universities."

I've made a career study of scripting languages. Guys like Prof. John 
Ousterhout, who invented the scripting language Tcl and who can be 
presumed to know a good deal about the subject, have typically 
described the difference between a scripting language and a programming 
language as being one of intent. A scripting language, by their (and 
my) understanding is a language primarily intended to glue together 
processes and applications that would otherwise not be able to interact 
with one another. A programming language may be able to do some or all 
of that as well, but is more typically intended for the creation of 
independent programs.

AppleScript is, IMNSHO, a classic example of that. You *can* write 
quasi-standalone applications in AppleScript but it's painful. But ask 
AppleScript to get data from file A, send it to Application B, lanch 
Application C and print something in a seamless process, and it fairly 
shines.

People who say things like the above are typically only slightly 
informed (and you know what they say about a little knowledge and 
danger) and tend to confuse the issue of scripting vs. programming 
languages with that of interpreted vs. compiled languages. I used to 
get a real kick out of demonstrating Smalltalk apps and having people 
ask me, "How does that thing run so fast?" and then replying 
nonchalantly, "Oh, that's because it's interpreted." Heads nodded 
sagely.


~~
Dan Shafer, Co-Chair
RevConWest '05
June 17-18, 2005, Monterey, California
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit/RevConWest
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Jim Carwardine]

So, in summary, Rev can create an OOP, but an OOP can't create Rev... Jim

on 4/30/05 12:57 PM, Dennis Brown wrote:

> 
> On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
>> 
>> OTOH, PostScript is a real programming language, a point which a lot
>> of people seem to miss...
>> 
> 
> As a point of interest, the PostScript syntax is directly related to a
> general machine independent programming language called Forth.  Forth
> was used to control telescopes in the days of the minicomputer.  It
> migrated to various microprocessors and was used a lot in process
> control applications.  Forth is still alive and well today.
> 
> Dennis
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

-- 

OYF is... Highly resourceful people working together.


Own Your Future Consulting Services Limited,
1959 Upper Water Street, Suite 407, Halifax, Nova Scotia. B3J 3N2
Phone: 902-823-2339. Fax: 902-823-2139

What¹s New...

* Have you ever hired an employee who didn¹t work out?

* Did you do that on purpose?

Probably not...

If you want to greatly improve your hiring process,
 check out our new hiring process... www.HiringSmart.ca/ns

  and...
www.KeepingTheBest.ca/ns 



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Dennis Brown]

On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
OTOH, PostScript is a real programming language, a point which a lot 
of people seem to miss...

As a point of interest, the PostScript syntax is directly related to a 
general machine independent programming language called Forth.  Forth 
was used to control telescopes in the days of the minicomputer.  It 
migrated to various microprocessors and was used a lot in process 
control applications.  Forth is still alive and well today.

Dennis
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Rob Cozens]

Frank, et al:
But I for one would not pretend to call it an actual object-oriented 
language until we can define our own classes, subclass those classes *and* 
the built-in classes (such as button, field, group, card, stack...),
Again, groups and grouped groups can duplicate the functionality fairly 
easily.
Rob Cozens CCW
Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
 Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
 from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Rob Cozens]

Frank, et al:
Before someone goes and says, "but we have inheritance -- the group 
intercepts messages not received by objects in the group, the card 
receives from the group, etc." -- there is a certain level of inheritance 
in place, and Rev does have many characteristics of an object-oriented 
language.  But I for one would not pretend to call it an actual 
object-oriented language until we can define our own classes, subclass 
those classes *and* the built-in classes (such as button, field, group, 
card, stack...), and so on.  There needs to be a degree of 
scripter-defined polymorphism present, as well.
I must admit that I fell prey to this line of thinking for the longest 
time, feeling "Give me an OOP concept, and I can script that 
functionality."  It took me some time to realize the difference is that the 
functionality is already built in to the OOP when you open the box.

Still, one can script much of OOP functionality fairly easily, and one is 
not prevented from incorporating OOP concepts in one's design; so I'd label 
RunRev as "quasi OOP".

Example: if Frank's example involved changing a button's name instead of 
its label,

on nameChanged oldName,newName
  if char 1 of newName is not a number then set the name of me to oldName
end nameChanged
Rob Cozens CCW
Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
 Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
 from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Victor Eijkhout]

On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Derek Bump wrote:
What programming language is not object oriented? Everything is an 
object.
Object-oriented refers to programmatic objects. Classes, inheritance, 
polymorphism. RR has very little of that.

V.
--
Victor Eijkhout
Innovative Computing Lab, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
865 974 9308
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Derek Bump wrote:
On top of that, so what if it's not taught in Universities!  A 
statement like that is just like one from those people out there that 
say "Oh, it's NOT from Microsoft...well then it MUST be bad!"
I do the opposite: "Oh, it's a Microsoft product, so it MUST be bad!"
And one more thing.  What programming language is not object oriented? 
Everything is an object.  Pixels, fields, buttons, windows, cursors, 
icons, text, variables, arrays, and so on and so on.  Revolution is 
object oriented, just like C++, Java, JavaScript, Basic and even HTML.
No, OOP is a somewhat specific paradigm for computer programming, and 
includes certain characteristics which are *not* present in Rev.

Yes, many things are viewed as objects, and Rev even refers to things 
as objects (well, they are, actually), but this does not make Rev an 
object-oriented programming language.  We cannot define custom object 
classes, for example.

Before someone goes and says, "but we have inheritance -- the group 
intercepts messages not received by objects in the group, the card 
receives from the group, etc." -- there is a certain level of 
inheritance in place, and Rev does have many characteristics of an 
object-oriented language.  But I for one would not pretend to call it 
an actual object-oriented language until we can define our own classes, 
subclass those classes *and* the built-in classes (such as button, 
field, group, card, stack...), and so on.  There needs to be a degree 
of scripter-defined polymorphism present, as well.

Note that others may disagree with me here, there are a number of 
conflicting opinions on what it takes to be an object-oriented 
language, but to my mind, you need unbounded subclassing capabilities 
and polymorphism in order to be object-oriented.

Rev does not allow us to do these things right now.  That doesn't mean 
that Transcript is a bad programming language; I think it is quite good 
for solving a large number of problems.  It simply means that it is not 
an object-oriented programming language.

Any more than it is a functional language, btw: Transcript is a 
procedural language with some object-oriented characteristics mixed in. 
 A true functional language has no messages, procedure-equivalents, 
etc.  LISP is an example of a functional language.

In a functional language, the entire program is just one huge function 
call.

A quick Google search reveals this, which may be helpful as far as 
classification of languages:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NygaardClassification

But, if I'm wrong in any of these areas then maybe someone here can 
set me straight?
I think I just did ;-)
One more thing: HTML is *not* a programming language in any sense 
whatsoever.  HTML has no constructs for repetition.  HTML is a document 
markup language (which is what it stands for -- hyper-text MARKUP 
language) designed for embellishing statically-formatted documents.  
Things were added later which allow for some degree of interactivity 
(such as forms, etc.), but the actual processing is handled by another 
programming language (such as PHP, Perl, or Rev), *not* by HTML.

OTOH, PostScript is a real programming language, a point which a lot of 
people seem to miss...

- ---
Frank D. Engel, Jr.  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
$ ln -s /usr/share/kjvbible /usr/manual
$ true | cat /usr/manual | grep "John 3:16"
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life.
$
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCc5tb7aqtWrR9cZoRAhMuAJ995w0q4xHB7VQ83mmpLV/EOLME6gCeKmCn
of9Tsm5e5caKi6gDoSWV0So=
=Eq+/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
$0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Signup at www.doteasy.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[jbv]

Jim,

In the early days of HC (circa 1987/88) I was already facing this
kind of objection from C or Pascal programers...
Even in the early 80's when I was experimenting with Logo, I used
to hear similar comments...

Tell your ISP that (today more than ever) only 1 thing matters :
how much time (and therefore $$$) does it take to produce reliable and
fast code to the satisfaction of your clients...
Show him a few apps made with Rev and ask him how much time (and
$$$) it would take to do the same with Java, C, etc.
Then ask him to compare the learning curve between Rev, Java, C...
One anecdote : a few years ago a friend of mine asked me to teach him
the basics of HC (he already had an experience of coding in Basic).
In less than 1 hr I managed to teach him the basic concepts, and soon he
was up and running... I'm sure the same story could apply to Rev, since
the basic concepts of both tools are similar...

As someone already said, your ISP answer is a way to avoid any depth
analysis of Rev capabilities... It's also the usual answer from ppl who
usually struggle with complex programing environments and who are
bitter to see other ppl developping sophisticated apps 2 to 5 times faster...

JB

> I know there has been lots of discussion on this topic since I joined the
> list and I know many Rev'ers on this list have converted to Rev as their dev
> language of first choice.
>
> I'm having a continuing conversation with my provider about using his sever
> to serve my Rev app.  First was he highly recommended MSSQL, which the list
> took exception to.  Then I suggested he take a look at RunRev as a
> development tool himself (hoping to get some local expertise using Rev on a
> server) and here was his reply...
>
> "it is more of scripting language that a real programming language ? which
> is awesome for the non-technical developers like me and you, but is not a
> true object oriented application language which is being taught in
> universities."
>
> I don't know what to say about that.
>
> Are there are x-talk/OOP languages that are compiled,
> or, a difference between an OOP and an x-talk language,
> or, maybe he just assumed that Rev is not a true OOP on first glance? ...
> Jim
>
> on 4/26/05 10:30 AM, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > It's one of the few databases I'd consider inferior to MySql, not
> > because it lacks cross-platform compatibility, but because it is a
> > Microsoft product ;-)
> >
> > Realistically, any of the major database servers will have advantages
> > and disadvantages compared to the others.  I personally like
> > PostgreSQL: it is free for both noncommercial *and* commercial use
> > (unlike MySql, which is only free for non-commercial use), it is
> > reasonably fast and quite powerful, fully ACID-compliant, supports
> > stored procedures, views, and so forth, has a sizable user community,
> > etc.
> >
> > And it runs just fine on my OS X box, along with Windows, Linux, and a
> > variety of other platforms.
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Jim Carwardine wrote:
> >
> >> What about the differences between MySQL and MSSQL.  The proponents of
> >> MSSQL
> >> are adamant that it is far better.  Is it really?  Of course, it's not
> >> x-platform, which is a mark against it in my books... Jim
> >>
> >> on 4/25/05 3:58 PM, Bill wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes I agree that SQL is the way to go. I can't wait until the MySQL to
> >>> SQLite utility is released so that I can try SQLite. I think it will
> >>> be
> >>> faster at connecting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/25/05 2:17 PM, "Dan Shafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> 
>  Anyone else thinking along these lines?
> >>>
> >>>   |||
> >>>  )_)  )_)  )_)
> >>> )___))___))___)\
> >>>)))_)\\
> >>>  _|||\\\__
> >>> ---\   /- http://www.bluewatermaritime.com
> >>> ^ ^
> >>>    ^^^^^
> >>>    ^^^
> >>>
> >>> 24 hour cell: (787) 378-6190
> >>> fax: (787) 809-8426
> >>>
> >>> Blue Water Maritime
> >>> P.O. Box 91
> >>> Puerto Real, PR 00740
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> use-revolution mailing list
> >>> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> >>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> OYF is... Highly resourceful people working together.
> >> 
> >>
> >> Own Your Future Consulting Services Limited,
> >> 1959 Upper Water Street, Suite 407, Halifax, Nova Scotia. B3J 3N2
> >> Phone: 902-823-2339. Fax: 902-823-2139
> >>
> >> What1s New...
> >>
> >> * Have you ever hired an employee who didn1t work out?
> >>
> >> * Did you do that on purpose?
> >>
> >> Probably not...
> >>
> >> If you want to greatly improve your hiring process,
> >>  check out our new hiring process... www.HiringSmart.ca/ns
> >> 
>

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Rob Cozens]

Frank, et al:
As for an object-oriented programming language, no Rev is *not* an 
object-oriented programming language, at least not in the traditional sense.

For example, in Rev, let's  say we want to change the label of the button; 
we do this with a command like:

set the label of button "My Button" to "Hello"
In other words, we are giving an instruction to Rev, such that our script 
code changes the button's label.  In more traditional OOP, we instead send 
a message to the button, asking it to change its own label; something more 
like (pseudo-code, not necessarily in any "real" programming language):

tell button "My Button" to set its label to "Hello"
At first the distinction may seem quite subtle, and you may not recognize 
the benefits to this, but consider that I want to create a new type of 
button with certain characteristics, one of which is that the label of the 
button always begin with a digit.  I can enforce this by having the button 
reject an attempt to set its label to anything other than a string 
starting with a digit (again with the pseudo-code):

when asked to set my label to x
  if char 1 of x is a number then
set the label of me to x
  else
throw "Invalid Label"
  end if
end when asked to set my label
Note that the prior code would still work the same way, and would not need 
to know what kind of button it was dealing with (of course, it would have 
an exception raised with this kind of button, since "Hello" does not start 
with a digit...)

We can't currently do this with Rev.
In button script:
on setMyLabel labelName
  if char 1 of labelName is a number then
  set the label of me to labelName
  return empty
  end if
  return "Invalid label name:"&&labelName
end setMyLabel
elsewhere:
send "setMyLabel Hello" to button id targetButtonId
??
Rob Cozens CCW
Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
 Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
 from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631) 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Derek Bump]

> "it is more of scripting language that a real programming language ­ 
which
> is awesome for the non-technical developers like me and you, but is not a
> true object oriented application language which is being taught in
> universities."

You know, this is exactly the kind of statement that I really don't 
enjoy hearing.  Who is to say that a script is not a program.  It does 
exactly the same thing.  A computer follows code to determine what to 
do.  Last time I checked, a computer does the same thing with a script.

On top of that, so what if it's not taught in Universities!  A statement 
like that is just like one from those people out there that say "Oh, 
it's NOT from Microsoft...well then it MUST be bad!"

And one more thing.  What programming language is not object oriented? 
Everything is an object.  Pixels, fields, buttons, windows, cursors, 
icons, text, variables, arrays, and so on and so on.  Revolution is 
object oriented, just like C++, Java, JavaScript, Basic and even HTML.

But, if I'm wrong in any of these areas then maybe someone here can set 
me straight?

Derek Bump
Dreamscape Software
http://www.dreamscapesoftware.com/
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Pierre Sahores]

Jim,
I know there has been lots of discussion on this topic since I joined 
the
list and I know many Rev'ers on this list have converted to Rev as 
their dev
language of first choice.

I'm having a continuing conversation with my provider about using his 
sever
to serve my Rev app.  First was he highly recommended MSSQL, which the 
list
took exception to.  Then I suggested he take a look at RunRev as a
development tool himself (hoping to get some local expertise using Rev 
on a
server) and here was his reply...

"it is more of scripting language that a real programming language – 
which
is awesome for the non-technical developers like me and you, but is 
not a
true object oriented application language which is being taught in
universities."

I don't know what to say about that.
Are there are x-talk/OOP languages that are compiled,
or, a difference between an OOP and an x-talk language,
or, maybe he just assumed that Rev is not a true OOP on first glance? 
...
Jim
In the real production-state world, Rev TCP/IP applications servers are 
just :

- running 10 times faster than any Tomcat's or JBoss's hosted app ;
- developped by the app's designers them self in less time it take to 
teams to just tune SAP-based prebuild solutions :
- a mix between the best OOP programming langages guidlines issued from 
the smalltalk paradigm and the power of the best functional langages ;
- running as bytecode on top of a virtual machine that compile the 
scripts once before running them, just like Java try to do lots slower 
;
- a framework able to let us design and build all the 
"Model-View-Controler" n-tier based solutions the Java guys are 
dreaming about when they try to develop in using dozens of differents 
framworks (Tiles, Struts, Hibernate, ..., JMeter,...) without finding 
their "Graal".

As a complement, you can translate what, Michel Lai (one of the bests 
french OOP expert and Java independant CTO, along universities and 
engeeniers schools Professor, the french Ecole Pratique des 
Hautes-Etudes institute where i got my distribued applications Master, 
included) wrote after first testing one of the apps i wrote recently :

Salut Pierre,
Ton appli est vaiment impressionnate. Jamais je n'aurais eu le courage 
d'utiliser Tiles Strust et Hibernate pour gérer des formulaires aussi 
importants ! En tout cas cela donne envie de voir de plus près ce que 
représente REVO. Dans ton cas d'appli très orientée formulaires et 
SGBD (le fameux CRUD) c'est certainement très performants et quasi 
imbattable avec mes bien trop complexes frameworks Java. Cependant 
quid des performances et de la "scalabilité" de la run time.
Combien d'utilisateurs simultanés pourraient tu traiter sur un serveur 
plus conséquent que ton Mac Mini, Par exemple un G5 avec Biprocesseur. 
Utilise tu un gestionnaire de connexions à la base de données (Pools 
de connexions). Peux tu faire du mapping objects /SGBDR ? Comment 
géres tu la récupération de la connexion si un utilisateur quitte le 
site sans avoir cliqué sur quitter ? As tu des exemples de site en 
réelle production supportant une disponibilité de 99,9 % ?
A bientôt.
Michel Lai
If that don't suffice, just let him ask me for a login/password on the 
app Professor Michel Lai is speaking about and i will be aware to let 
him test this web application online...

Hope this can help,
Best Regards,
--
Bien cordialement, Pierre Sahores
100, rue de Paris
F - 77140 Nemours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GSM:   +33 6 03 95 77 70
Pro:  +33 1 64 45 05 33
Fax:  +33 1 64 45 05 33

WEB/VoD/ACID-DB services over IP
"Mutualiser les deltas de productivité"
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: To Rev or not to Rev

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hmm... well, first of all, a scripting language *is* a real programming 
language.  Just because a language isn't compiled doesn't mean it isn't 
real.  In fact, every language is interpreted; even "compiled" 
languages are simply translated into machine language, which is 
interpreted by the computer's processor.  It's just a matter of whether 
the language is interpreted by hardware, or by software.

Second, I for one have a Masters degree in Computer Science, and would 
not have made a fraction of the progress I have on the project I am 
doing right now if I were using something other than Rev -- one of 
those so-called "real" programming languages.

As for an object-oriented programming language, no Rev is *not* an 
object-oriented programming language, at least not in the traditional 
sense.

For example, in Rev, let's  say we want to change the label of the 
button; we do this with a command like:

set the label of button "My Button" to "Hello"
In other words, we are giving an instruction to Rev, such that our 
script code changes the button's label.  In more traditional OOP, we 
instead send a message to the button, asking it to change its own 
label; something more like (pseudo-code, not necessarily in any "real" 
programming language):

tell button "My Button" to set its label to "Hello"
At first the distinction may seem quite subtle, and you may not 
recognize the benefits to this, but consider that I want to create a 
new type of button with certain characteristics, one of which is that 
the label of the button always begin with a digit.  I can enforce this 
by having the button reject an attempt to set its label to anything 
other than a string starting with a digit (again with the pseudo-code):

when asked to set my label to x
  if char 1 of x is a number then
set the label of me to x
  else
throw "Invalid Label"
  end if
end when asked to set my label
Note that the prior code would still work the same way, and would not 
need to know what kind of button it was dealing with (of course, it 
would have an exception raised with this kind of button, since "Hello" 
does not start with a digit...)

We can't currently do this with Rev.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:06 AM, Jim Carwardine wrote:
I know there has been lots of discussion on this topic since I joined 
the
list and I know many Rev'ers on this list have converted to Rev as 
their dev
language of first choice.

I'm having a continuing conversation with my provider about using his 
sever
to serve my Rev app.  First was he highly recommended MSSQL, which the 
list
took exception to.  Then I suggested he take a look at RunRev as a
development tool himself (hoping to get some local expertise using Rev 
on a
server) and here was his reply...

"it is more of scripting language that a real programming language â 
which
is awesome for the non-technical developers like me and you, but is 
not a
true object oriented application language which is being taught in
universities."

I don't know what to say about that.
Are there are x-talk/OOP languages that are compiled,
or, a difference between an OOP and an x-talk language,
or, maybe he just assumed that Rev is not a true OOP on first glance? 
...
Jim

on 4/26/05 10:30 AM, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's one of the few databases I'd consider inferior to MySql, not
because it lacks cross-platform compatibility, but because it is a
Microsoft product ;-)
Realistically, any of the major database servers will have advantages
and disadvantages compared to the others.  I personally like
PostgreSQL: it is free for both noncommercial *and* commercial use
(unlike MySql, which is only free for non-commercial use), it is
reasonably fast and quite powerful, fully ACID-compliant, supports
stored procedures, views, and so forth, has a sizable user community,
etc.
And it runs just fine on my OS X box, along with Windows, Linux, and a
variety of other platforms.
On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Jim Carwardine wrote:
What about the differences between MySQL and MSSQL.  The proponents 
of
MSSQL
are adamant that it is far better.  Is it really?  Of course, it's 
not
x-platform, which is a mark against it in my books... Jim

on 4/25/05 3:58 PM, Bill wrote:
Yes I agree that SQL is the way to go. I can't wait until the MySQL 
to
SQLite utility is released so that I can try SQLite. I think it will
be
faster at connecting.

On 4/25/05 2:17 PM, "Dan Shafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone else thinking along these lines?
  |||
 )_)  )_)  )_)
)___))___))___)\
   )))_)\\
 _|||\\\__
---\   /- 
http://www.bluewatermaritime.com
^ ^
   ^^^^^
   ^^^

24 hour cell: (787) 378-6190
fax: (787) 809-8426
Blue Water Maritime
P.O. Box 91
Puerto Real, PR 00740

___