Linked by Kaj-de-Vos on Sun 29th May 2011 09:44 UTC
Syllable, AtheOS There's a new REBOL like programming language in town. It's called Red, it's BSD licensed and contrary to REBOL and Boron, Red is a compiled language. The Syllable project is proud to announce that Red programs now run on Syllable Desktop. Here is a screenshot from a demo program. Syllable is the third Red target platform, after Windows and Linux.
Order by: Score:
v Amiga version?
by Minuous on Sun 29th May 2011 10:37 UTC
RE: Amiga version?
by Kaj-de-Vos on Sun 29th May 2011 11:49 UTC in reply to "Amiga version?"
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

As always with open source projects, it will happen faster if you contribute the port you want.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Amiga version?
by SamuraiCrow on Tue 31st May 2011 12:26 UTC in reply to "Amiga version?"
SamuraiCrow Member since:
2005-11-19

Just because they started out with x86 doesn't mean you can't port it to PPC later on.

Yes REBOL 3 works on PPC Amigas. No it doesn't work on all Amiga-likes.

Reply Score: 2

Would it have been that tough...
by sgtrock on Sun 29th May 2011 16:29 UTC
sgtrock
Member since:
2011-05-13

...to spend a paragraph at the top of the article describing what REBOL is, what it's good for, and why anyone would want a compiled version of it?

Reply Score: 1

Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

The article is about Red, not about REBOL. Red already has considerable documentation, which is linked. If you want to know about REBOL, it's easy to find.

Reply Score: 1

theuserbl Member since:
2006-01-10

Red is additional linked to REBOL, because the current Red is written in REBOL and need the interpreter of it.

Reply Score: 1

This is great!
by obsidian on Sun 29th May 2011 21:45 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

I've followed Rebol for quite a while (although I've only played around with it a bit). Good to see that there are open-source workalikes of it coming along now.

Rebol looks like the kind of language that could be reasonably straightforward to implement using a bootstrap approach. Define what a "word" is and build things up from there. It reminds me a bit of Forth (not that I've used that much either... )

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is great!
by Kaj-de-Vos on Sun 29th May 2011 22:16 UTC in reply to "This is great! "
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

Exactly. One of the inspirations for REBOL was Forth, and the REBOL 2 interpreter is a Forth-like engine. (REBOL 1 had a Scheme-like engine. REBOL 3 is probably somewhere inbetween.)

Reply Score: 1

LLVM JIT only considered?
by SamuraiCrow on Tue 31st May 2011 12:31 UTC
SamuraiCrow
Member since:
2005-11-19

Why did they consider the LLVM JIT instead of the static compilation process? At the beginning of the article didn't they say that Red is aiming to be statically compilable?

I must question the optimization capabilities of the toolchain when they reinvent the wheel only to have to reinvent every single spoke on the wheel.

Reply Score: 2

RE: LLVM JIT only considered?
by Kaj-de-Vos on Tue 31st May 2011 13:43 UTC in reply to "LLVM JIT only considered?"
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

LLVM JIT wasn't considered instead of the static compilation, it was considered period. The article and the Red roadmap explain that after the static compiler, a JIT compiler will be added early next year. This is needed to implement more REBOL features, because REBOL is an inherently dynamic language.

In such projects, there's always the dilemma of using existing projects or rolling your own. This could be called reinventing wheels, but that assumes that you would be happy with wooden donkey cart wheels on your new electric car.

REBOL is designed as a meta-language, a tool for others to develop languages with. This makes it especially suitable to bootstrap Red with. When evaluating what LLVM brings to the table in addition to that, it was apparent that it didn't justify the overhead. The current Red/System compiler, code generator and linker are implemented in a total of around 3000 lines. The compressed distribution package including a runtime and a test suite is currently around 100 KB. Compare that to LLVM and GCC and you'll see why they weren't needed.

Reply Score: 1

RE: LLVM JIT only considered?
by Kaj-de-Vos on Tue 31st May 2011 14:18 UTC in reply to "LLVM JIT only considered?"
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09