@DaveAE

Quote:

DaveAE wrote: @linnar From the FAQ ("http://www.microsoft.com/express/support/faq/): "Can I use Express Editions for commercial use? Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions

In FAQ:
"Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?
Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions"

IN Doc:
"PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use."

_________________
There are very interesting in all languages.
http://www.kensonpro.com
Program, codes for websites, hifi, measuring instruments and more. The site is of more than 1200 pages and nearly 3Gb .

@linnar

Which doc are you referring to?

_________________
Audio Evolution
http://www.audio-evolution.com

@-pekr-

Quote:

R3 will kill AA2 in few months ....

The problem with the Rebol language is that it looks completely alien in comparison to what 99% of people are used to (C, Java, Basic).

@dimitros

well, then maybe we should write REBOL BASIC dialect for you then But yes, it is not traditional in sense you mentioned. The reason is, REBOL is functional language, so it looks unfamiliar, and there is some learning curve needed to get yourself familiar with the concepts. But the expresiveness of functional languages is imo unbeaten.

However, I can understand your point. Sometimes it is easier to simply follow kind of C, javascript, basic, java kind of source codes. But you named pretty much very different beasts and completly forgot other upon layers, as object orientiation, how those languages implement it, and what is required for user to know in order to succesfully utilise the environment.

[sarcasm about easy readibility of the "traditional" code: on]

Maybe, after all those long years, some developers were not still getting the easiness of Java UI development? Or how can you explain me that after all those years java guys got JavaFX? Its declarative nature looks like REBOL/View (VID) inspired environment ... well, even those gurus probably need to take some break from strict OOP, using more easy aproaches.

[sarcasm about easy readibility of the "traditional" code: off]

All I wanted to say is, that the complexity does not necessarily come from how source code looks or not. So, while REBOL syntax might look alien at first sight, maybe you would be surprised how relatively easy it is to build usefull tool. And once again - with REBOL, we are mostly talking PITL (programming in the small), not big apps (until R3 with all its concepts is here and stable).

As for the licence, you have to choose, what level of freedom does AA2 brings you ...

-pekr-

@dimitros

"The problem with the Rebol language is that it looks completely alien in comparison to what 99% of people are used to (C, Java, Basic)."

It sure is, and that is its supreme beauty as a scripting language.

It requires a small shift in assumptions and a fair amount of work getting your head around parts of it -- but it is extraordinary -- I have never used anything like it.

Mind you I am a newbie and putting everything on hold unil Rebol 3 is out.

My biggest problem was I kept trying to use it as a command based system. Its syntax appears very confusing, because in essence it is so simple. That is an odd problem, putting aside what you expect it should do, and seeing what it is actually doing, is hard.

One thing is for sure, people who come to REBOL without the presumptions based on other languages probably have a sizable advantage.

It needs a different sort of manual, something that conceptually explains what it is doing and how.

I'd been looking at LUA as a general REXX replacement, several imes I looked at REBOL and gave up on it. Then it clicked, I am not knocking LUA which is a fine langauge, but REBOL is an application environment, it is not simply a scripting lanaguage.

REBOL will have trouble getting established, it has not exactly set the world on fire, but if REBOL 3 works as well as it promises to do, it will have a gravitational pull, slowly expanding in usuage to begin with, and at some point the mix of compiled code and scripting will start producing a swathe of light but powerful apps.

It is I believe quite possible that it may be the future.

Porting remains a problem with me. SDL/allegro, AA2 and Antix, or some resurrected TAO, anything that gives it widely diverse ports would be of great benefit, I just don't think the rebol organization is quite up to porting widely, especially on the small devices.

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@GregS

Hello Greg,

just a note to porting. Some time ago I was strong proponent of porting REBOL to AA1, Java and .NET. However, some developers think, that REBOL upon JAVA would be slow. I also have to ask myself - is Antix/AA2 established? Show me list of devices, where porting REBOL you would imediatelly benefit from. JAVA is probably the most spread VM (if we think about mobile devices at lest), but is it a full JAVA? So - some guys think, that direct port would be better. Of course you then need to get your REBOL VM to those devices somehow, and that is the main problem.

As for porting efforts, DevBase is nearly ready. rebol-host parts will surely be uploaded there. It is now upon the community, to port R3 anywhere we wish, noone can stop you, as it is going to be open sourced. Then RT will just compile R3 cross-platform library for your target platform. It would be probably a good excercise, to get some C Amiga coder hooked, trying to port R3 to let's say AmigaOS4/MorphOS/Aros Those platforms users would then benefit from cross-plaftorms app written for REBOL, e.g. Altme, etc.

I really would not spam this thread more, it is just that I can feel RT might be up for something, and the more tools AmigaOS and its a-likes get, the better imo, so why not REBOL, right? OTOH Amiga has already Python with Vxwidgets or something similar, which is pretty decent too ...

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

And the great Lord giveith with one handith, then slaps you in the pus with the otherith handith... Amiga finaly gains some measure of credibility with the release of the SDK, then takes it all back again in one fell swoop. Who ever came up with this business model should do the decent thing and roll over and die, before the business model does. Limited control over something is better than total control over nothing.* * From the big book of boardroom slogans.

Welcome to the sad reality that has been Amiga, Inc. for years. Better late than never I suppose.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@linnar

Quote:

linnar wrote: In FAQ: "Can I use Express Editions for commercial use? Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions" IN Doc: "PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION. Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use."

Well, its "otherwise specified" then. Therefore the FAQ info wins.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback & Linnar

The express editions of Visual C++ and crew are not the full version of Visual Studio. The other download mentioned is and it is provided under a more restrictive license.

@linnar

Quote:

In FAQ: "Can I use Express Editions for commercial use? Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions" IN Doc: "PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION. Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use."

Basically, you, as a hobby developer, can use Visual Studio Express to create an application you can commercially research. You are not however allowed to use the Express edition in a corporate environment, or, in the simplest case, form a company and use it.

_________________

@DaveAE

Quote:

DaveAE wrote: @linnar From the FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/express/support/faq/): "Can I use Express Editions for commercial use? Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions."

In You'r link above in the site scroll down You have a link "Terms of Use"

Last edited by linnar on 21-Feb-2008 at 07:34 PM.
Last edited by linnar on 21-Feb-2008 at 07:33 PM.

_________________
There are very interesting in all languages.
http://www.kensonpro.com
Program, codes for websites, hifi, measuring instruments and more. The site is of more than 1200 pages and nearly 3Gb .

@-pekr-

You are right Aa2/antix are not established, what I am saying is entirely speculative.

I can understand the reservations about porting to .Net and Java.

However, the problem of widely porting needs to be solved somehow. In my house at the moment with my wife and two sons, we have a MS laptop, two defunct (working but slow) PCs, one working PC, a A1, a HP PDA, a PSP, a PS2, a PS3 and a brand new eink device (Irex Iliad). Soon work will force me to have a mobile phone and I have my eye on the new Readius scroll out device.

By far the best and most powerful computer we have is the PS3, but it is a mere games console (with linux but hardly ever used). There is a shared Lan HD, wifi, a shared laser printer and a 8 Gig USB stick.

We are not doing too badly in terms of accumulated electronics. Hardly used at all (or completely retured at the moment) because of a lack of shared software is the PSP, PDA, the functional but slow PCs, the PS2 and the A1. Thge most important factor is not the machines, but the software. At work there is the normal PC junk, with the normal dismal software (MS word etc.,.) - I take my laptop to work mainly because it has the software I am use to using.

We, and I don't mean the Amiga computer, but computer users as a whole, whether we know it or not, need Rebol's 3 Application environment, that aside from apps that either won't fit or can't function on this or that device, we need our apps on all our devices.

REBOL 3 gives the environment, but the porting is the ugly duckling.

TAO had a solution, but it is gone, Virtual Machines (JAVA) are in my opinion largely too problematical to rely upon, auto install/compiles are a different matter.

It is not that REBOL 3 can't be ported to the main OS/platforms, but that it is unlikely to be ported widely enough to make the impact it should.

It is a question of a division of labour. AI on paper (I will ignore Antix, for the sake of argument), has via AI India some important technologies re porting. AA2 is the right sort of thing for general hosting, (if it meets practical requirements which I cannot judge). Creating a porting base is no small achievement, and IF AI can do this, it is a critical asset for the future of computing.

Ideally some real working partnership would be needed. But if REBOL 3 did one port to AA2, a single app that is just REBOL 3, I would be buying it tomorrow, just to run it on Windows, Linux and CE.

To have one part looking after REBOL and another seeing to intall/compile porting, puts both AI and Rebol into a good position, and for me a user, I finally have the hope, at least of having some useful sefl made utilities and perhaps more running where I need them.

I would sum up the problem, a sort of disease, rather than a technical problem in terms of AOS4 (and everything else). We are hanging out for HW, still. Yet the PS3, one of the best computers, also running a version of PPC, with an open invitation to run a secondary OS -- sits there unused.

People want an Amiga system, OS 4 needs it, and one sits, it is not even very expensive now, and nothing is done because all the players are bound up. For god's sake port OS4 to the PS3!! at least.

You get one chance in the evolution of technology to fill a gap, widen it and lead the industry. That chance is there now. REBOL 3 has the correct idea (a scripted application environment that supports generalisied compiled code), AI has the porting technology, AOS4 stripped down running on the PS3 has the base machine set. It is all there ready to go, but nothing is comming together.

All the players can and should pursue their own agendas in their own way, but could they not also come together on a single joint venture?

REBOL 3 --> AA2 ---> to as many platforms it can do, AOS4 ----> PS3, as it is now for the community but also modified stripped down OS4 as a REBOL 3 application environment native host for those wanting to concentrate on the future.

Aim to make OS4/OS5 are truely portable OS, relying on REBOL 3 for the apps -- that is a future, sure not the only combination, but it has some strengths for making an impact.

A very small OS ( and OS4 we know can be made very very small), an independent and independently porting applications environment (REBOL 3) and a hosting technology AA2. A powerful and cheap reference machine (PS3).

Jesus wept! All the parts are there, all of them could easily come together in a single year. All it needs is a bullet proof joint project. AI and Hyperion could pursue their legal squabbles, REBOL 3 could continue its own porting, OS5 could go on. And we could still have a joint project using the technologies on hand.

But I am sure here, and elsewhere, some will only see it through the lens of selling some PPC boards, running AOS4 for a handful of users. Not that the project above would interfere with this, but because some players only dream of owning the whole cake, when a much bigger cake can be had each slice of which would be far bigger than the cake they want to own.

Sorry for the rant.

-pekr- obviously only a tiny bit of the above was a reply. If people only realisied what REBOL 3 represents, how different software could become, a lot of the petty bickering here would dissapear.

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@GregS

Greg, I just don't get something. You still think, that AI has some "porting technology"? What technology are you talking about? Do you think, that somehow magically you port R3 to AA2, and that just by adding plain compiler/linker for new platform, your app will run anywhere? Well, it could, but - how do you think they do it? They have to port their library to each particular platform IMO. How else would you span multiple very different OS APIs?

Do you want me to be honest? How do you want to port R3 to something which covers 3% of what R3 is? Not realistic. Of course, they can and surely will extend the platform, add another libraries etc., but how fast will they be?

@all

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/02/21/microsoft.sharing.ap/index.html

Quote:

updated 12:55 p.m. EST, Thu February 21, 2008 Microsoft Corp. says it will share more information about its products and technology. The company wants to make it easier for developers to create software that work with its products. Microsoft says it will publish technical information about its products on its Web site. The Redmond, Washington-based software company said Thursday it will ensure open connections to its high-volume products by publishing technical information about them on its Web site. Microsoft won't make software developers obtain a license or pay royalties or other fees. With Thursday's announcement, Microsoft is hoping to make it easier for software developers to make products that work well with the Vista computer operating system, Office word processing application and other key Microsoft products.

Something Amiga Inc. should do to help itself.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 22-Feb-2008 at 12:39 AM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback
Quote:

Something Amiga Inc. should do to help itself.

which part, I thought they were already working on:
Quote:

make it easier for software developers to make products that work well with the Vista computer operating system, Office word processing application and other key Microsoft products.

But yes, even if I believe info from MS will be 'limited' where it comes to use for Linux/open source projects, it's certainly marketing things in an expected fashion, not 'sign our SDA for our unknown product'

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

Quote:

You get one chance in the evolution of technology to fill a gap,

I don't actually agree with that sentiment, its a bit dramatic. However, I do agree that one shouldn't ignore chances as they come...

The problem here is that most programmers are already used to thinking a certain way, in fact, are invested with a great deal in learning a certain way, and are reluctant to change.

So when you ask a programmer if a language should be in their native language, or in English, they almost universally answer that it should be in English...if you've had to learn English already, then the last thing you want is for that requirement to be removed for the next guy...how would that be fair.

But the reality is when he talks about dialects...at its fundamental core, he means, dialects of English. An english language dialecting computer language.

If you take for granted that English is the center of the universe, then its easy to accuse me of not getting Carl's vision...but in fact I do get it. I just don't agree.

Dialects aren't important. The real opportunity would have been to support non-latin charactersets and support keywords in foreign languages.

That would have taken care of dialects too, of course...but addressing the real problem which is not getting another dialect of English supported, but rather supporting other languages....that lowers the bar, and is the opportunity, not yet addressed in the market.

I mean, I have played around with Глагол and similar languages...but they are junk.

Rebol, if Carl, could have been pursuaded the opportunity...could have been so much more, than what it is....it would have had worldwide acclaim and an instant niche in academic environments (nothing to sneeze at, since they have budgets and regularly purchase tools)....anyway....

I look at Rebol from time to time, but its not really great...its kind of fun, but just makes you made when you realize you cannot really dialect it in a meaningful way...its a bit of sophistry and thats about it.

@fairlanefastback

Well, I may be pointing out the obvious but noone here really thinks that any of Microsoft marketing strategies would be a realistic business modell for a small startup business, right? This is no argument to say that Amiga Inc. should be more open or closed about their AA2 SDK and documentation, just pointing out Microsoft's lack of relevance to anything here.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@-pekr-

Quote:

Greg, I just don't get something. You still think, that AI has some "porting technology"? What technology are you talking about? Do you think, that somehow magically you port R3 to AA2, and that just by adding plain compiler/linker for new platform, your app will run anywhere? Well, it could, but - how do you think they do it? They have to port their library to each particular platform IMO. How else would you span multiple very different OS APIs?

Basically I think this is exactly what they are doing -- that is compiling\re-compiling AA2 code to CPU code using their own thin library APIs which act as middle-ware functions to the Host. I believe ANTIX is doing something similar. No magic, except perhaps if it is really well designed and small.

For REBOL itself, it is just another port. But for third parties wishing to make apps in the REBOL application environment that need some compiled componants -- it makes a big difference. It means one compile while someone else looks to compatibility/host support. That is a huge saving to small companies that want to produce apps for multiple platforms.

If on the otherhand, REBOL gets the funding to do individual ports to lots and lots of devices, it is a different story to a degree at least.

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@RobertDupuy

Actually you really on get one chance, one window of opportunity in any evolving system, they always moves in fits and starts. When a door appears, and I bleiev a big one now exist, if you don't walk through the door someone else will, with something very similiar. But that is all abstract.

In terms of REBOL 3 which I believe is to be 16bit capable I cannot see how you are language bound, all the functions can be assigned to whatever you like. Hence Chinses versions are no big deal, just a quick assignment list - the rebol headers have room to declare the language, so it is no big deal to load a language module for that particular script.

As for dialects they are more for molding little sub-script-langauges which likewise can be any real language.

LUA does much the same thing. in terms of reassigning functions.

There are no key words in REBOL, at least nothing hat cannot be reassigned.

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@RobertDupuy

Hello Robert, interesting opinions indeed. You are absolutly right, that programmers tend to use languages, with similar patterns. I have never been in functional language league before REBOL. I think that it is a little bit fate of functional languages. Maybe except Forth in early years, they almost never get popular. While they are highly reflective, self-inspecting, cool for abstract stuff, I can guarantee you, that even some one-liners from REBOL gurus, can cause damage to my brain Sometimes, looking at javascript or php code, I just feel more relaxed, when I need to follow another person's code.

But! We talk language systax here. And language syntax is just the tip of the iceberg. You usually create your own higher level logic for your application, using what the environment offers you. I coded some 6 years using CA-Visual Objects, very strict object oriented and nice language. But I really felt restricted. OOP does not follow patterns in which I think. OOP is not a mantra for me. I simply think that some ppl over-engineer their stuff sometimes

So what actually is REBOL, and what is its dialecting supposed to be for? REBOL looks like kind of weird language on its surface. But that is once again only "the syntax view". You seem to mixture internalisation support with dialecting and syntax. All three are different:

Syntax:
Please show me "traditional" language, where you can redefine your keywords? In REBOL, I can easily do things like:

say: :print
say "Hello world!"

And you can bet I did it for REBOL1. I tried to make it Czech like. But man, it got confusing. Simply put - you DON'T want your keywords being translated imo. English is the Esperanto of today, just accept it. Who will follow my Czech code anyway? It is the same like I feel lost, when our french friends publish their valuable REBOL stuff in french only. It prevents me from the usage. Now you can call me ignorant, that I don't know French language, but that is the fact - I don't.

If you want to know, syntax wise, where REBOL can go, just look at following REBOL alien script, which was created as a reply to Larry Wall's (Perl author) interview, when he told the world REBOL uses too much of unnecessary punctuation )

http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=alien.r

result: "now perl users will not feel left out"

And now tell me, if REBOL does not provide you enough means of "localising" all its "keywords"?

Dialects
So, that was syntax, now back to dialecting. If you can't see what they are good for, then you miss one important point. Dialects are not for the internalisation. Of course, you can make various dialects in various languages, but - REBOL dialects are higher level free form APIs, which translate your dialect to REBOL code ( http://www.rebol.com/docs/view-guide.html ). The idea is imo very right - to offer declarative commandset to support particular domain of usage. When I work with the UI, I want to describe it in an easy way. I don't want to know freaking details of its inner implementation. Now go and ask Java authors, why they added one upper layer (a dialect) called JavaFX. Because even those self-acclaimed oop gurus are tired with the syntax level stuff? Or just ask my brother, when navigating telescope, if he wants to know anything more than move here, move there, stop, follow etc. By providing a dialect, he can script his work, still without the need to care about the internals. Powerfull stuff, I can tell you. Dialect can be seen as a communication protocol in such case ...

Internalisation
You mentioned other than latin-1 codepage support. Well, R2 was not supporting internalisation. It used local codepage. But with R3, we are getting full Unicode support. Carl worked on it for last three months, and level of Unicode support in R3 might go beyond what other languages provide. The change was so deep, that it required nearly a rewrite of R3. Next public alpha should be out in few weeks, so we will see, how it turns out ...

I really don't understand what you mean that you "cannot really dialect it in a meaningful way".

Last edited by -pekr- on 22-Feb-2008 at 12:05 PM.