| # | User | Message | Date |
| 3345 | Robert | Guys, nice chat but can we move to group performance or something like this? I like TechNews because it's just about that and no noise... | Thu 8:40 |
| 3344 | BrianH | I would assume so, with the exception of the part which requests memory from the OS. It could still be documented though. | Thu 7:53 |
| 3343 | Pekr | yes, most probably true. IIRC Ladislav discussed that topic with Carl, but I don't remember the details. GC will be part of closed source part of R3, no? | Thu 7:52 |
| 3342 | BrianH | This is why I have repeatedly requested details about REBOL's recycle algorithm. With the wrong algorithm, REBOL could be subject to the same problems the comic discusses, like delays and fragmentation. | Thu 7:51 |
| 3341 | BrianH | I'm afraid that their discussion of the effects of memory fragmentation is a real issue in memory management systems without compaction or other techniques to reduce it. You can have a lot of memory that is useless because the free memory is not in large enough chunks. | Thu 7:49 |
| 3340 | Pekr | haha, just read comics - it is kind of cool way to explain some features ... except the fact, how they turned inability to have properly threaded app into advantage talking about processes. While they claim single process (and address space) app will not release memory properly on one hand, on the other hand they mention overhead of data copy needed for their task based aproach, and somehow mysteriously they claim that "overtime it means less memory bloat" | Thu 7:46 |
| 3339 | Graham | start menu points to Chrome | Thu 7:38 |
| 3338 | BrianH | Does your start menu have a reference to your default browser? If so and it is Firefox, then Chrome is missing something. | Thu 7:38 |
| 3337 | Graham | Nope... still is the default browser but rebol is calling FF | Thu 6:31 |
| 3336 | shadwolf | every time you are running another wbebrowser they ask you if you want to change the default to the curent one | Thu 6:18 |
| 3335 | shadwolf | for me that work i set chrome as default webbrowser and when i use the WWW key on my keyboard that calls chrome | Thu 6:17 |
| 3334 | shadwolf | maybe too they didn't impact on the right registry entry that's a beta version ... that's normal if there is some hum things missing | Thu 6:13 |
| 3333 | Graham | oops .. let me try. | Thu 6:10 |
| 3332 | shadwolf | that's stroed into registry | Thu 6:10 |
| 3331 | shadwolf | you have restart windows since you made the change ? | Thu 6:09 |
| 3330 | Graham | This is annoying. I used the Chrome options to make it the default browser, but when I use 'browse from rebol, it still invokes FF 3. | Thu 4:09 |
| 3329 | shadwolf | solution introduced in chrome javascript runs in a new VM that read the code once transform it into hiden object and then into natural code wich is runed again and again and the VM is a speparated process to focus the resources where they are needed | Thu 1:31 |
| 3328 | shadwolf | for example java script -> slow because it's part of the asynchronous rendering system and because the javascript systeme reads over and over the same code to execute it | Thu 1:29 |
| 3327 | shadwolf | what i like in the comic is how they present the deferent technologies aspect how they are deal to day what is the problem and then what is the solution apported by the new point of view introdiced into chrome | Thu 1:28 |
| 3326 | shadwolf | the comicis great i was the first one to propose Carl to do something like that as presentation for R3 technos | Wed 22:52 |
| 3325 | BrianH | Good night :) | Wed 22:25 |
| 3324 | BrianH | Java code that is as powerful as REBOL code is slower than REBOL. If you restrict what your REBOL code does to what Java can do it will be slower with the current interpreter. You only get speed out of REBOL by writing REBOL code. | Wed 22:24 |
| 3323 | Dockimbel | Need to go to sleep, thanks for the nice chat Brian. | Wed 22:24 |
| 3322 | Dockimbel | I've also thought about all that quite often, it's a really fascinating topic. | Wed 22:24 |
| 3321 | Dockimbel | Inflexibility is what makes Java easier to compile. ;-) | Wed 22:22 |
| 3320 | BrianH | The fewer possible interpretations of a particular piece of REBOL code, the faster the compiler could make it. Inflexibility is what makes Java fast, not compilation. | Wed 22:20 |
| 3319 | BrianH | Yup (I've already given this some thought). Hand-optimized code may have to be reoptimized though, and this includes some of the optimizations that I made to some of the mezzanine functions. You would speed things up drastically by using explicit type checking or get-words to filter out theoretical function value evaluation. | Wed 22:18 |
| 3318 | Dockimbel | "Code blocks that aren't statically determinable at function creation time". I agree, but if you look at most of the code written in REBOL (including mine or Carl's), it doesn't fall into that case. So, I guess that most of REBOL written code can be compiled. Maybe the compiler could be made smart enough to figure out what code can or cannot be compiled. | Wed 22:13 |
| 3317 | BrianH | Remember, the JVM and CLR are both stack engnes. | Wed 22:11 |
| 3316 | BrianH | That's why I mentioned "other stack languages". There has been a lot of research in that camp too - they just name their languages other names than Forth. I think that some of the research in type-inferenced stack languages will eventually make Java and .NET faster too. | Wed 22:10 |
| 3315 | Dockimbel | Forth vs Java: well maybe it was very true 10 years ago, but since then, the gap is closing with some great improvements in compilation like Java's Hotspot VM. | Wed 22:07 |
| 3314 | BrianH | There are several functions in REBOL that operate on their argument blocks following the DO model. If you make those functions require a literal block you could compile REBOL as-is. | Wed 22:05 |
| 3313 | BrianH | There would be 2 things you would have to give up in a compilable dialect of REBOL, if you want it to be worth it: - Code blocks that aren't statically determinable at function creation time (unlike your example above, which could be partially evaluated) - Functions that could be edited in place, or hot-patched (already gone in R3) If you don't give these up you would be adding compilation overhead. Admittedly, Java isn't the right language to emulate here - Forth or other stack languages would be better, as they are closer to the REBOL execution model and compiled Forth can be drastically faster than the best Java code. | Wed 22:01 |
| 3312 | Dockimbel | Btw, I guess that Java JIT compiler can run in their own thread, so also being able to take real advantage from multi-core CPU. | Wed 22:00 |
| 3311 | Dockimbel | I don't agree for Java JIT overhead. Programs spend most of their time in loops where JIT overhead becomes rapidly unnoticeable (loops compiled code is cached). | Wed 21:58 |
| 3310 | BrianH | I would keep the DO dialect as is - it would be faster that way, because Java is only faster after you factor out JIT overhead. By having the compilation overhead at function creation time you could plan for it accordingly. | Wed 21:53 |
| 3309 | Dockimbel | I would choose block-level for a JIT compilation in REBOL, that would allow to compile more semantics than at function level. For example [do append [print] "hello"] could be compiled using block-level JIT. | Wed 21:51 |
| 3308 | BrianH | The new function binding model in R3 makes Rebcode not as fast in R3 as it was in R2, if it uses the same semantic model. In order to be worth including we would have to change the semantic model accordingly. | Wed 21:50 |
| 3307 | BrianH | By the way, DELECT uses some of the same techniques that rebcode did to be fast. | Wed 21:49 |
| 3306 | BrianH | Right. Functions are values in REBOL, and how they are interpreted (or compiled) depends on their datatype. | Wed 21:47 |
| 3305 | Dockimbel | (sorry) | Wed 21:46 |
| 3304 | Dockimbel | Function values | Wed 21:45 |
| 3303 | BrianH | It is only the function type that makes the data in a block considered code. | Wed 21:45 |
| 3302 | BrianH | The natural compilation unit in REBOL is the function. That is how the different function types have different execution models already. | Wed 21:42 |
| 3301 | BrianH | I am well aware of how the old rebcode worked - I was the main beta tester. It had the same dependencies then as well, though the execution engine being internal made the chain a little different. It was also unstable, buggy and insecure. | Wed 21:41 |
| 3300 | Dockimbel | What would be the compilation unit in your view of "compilable dialect", function! or block! values ? | Wed 21:41 |
| 3299 | BrianH | Yes, the compilable dialect would have different semantics than the DO dialect but could look superficially the same, and execute a lot of the same code (not mine, of course). We have done this before in the R1 to R2 transition when we switched from a Scheme-like engine to a Forth-like engine without changing the syntax (except for getting rid of ELSE). I already have some ideas about how to do this - it's on my to-do list. | Wed 21:38 |
| 3298 | Dockimbel | Brian, you're a good advocate for Carl's strategy, but Rebcode already exists without all that dependency chain and it's even usable, it's just a pity it didn't make it in 2.7.6 and Encap. | Wed 21:38 |
| 3297 | Dockimbel | :-D | Wed 21:33 |
| 3296 | Dockimbel | But I guess that even a JIT approach would require to give up on a few features of the DO dialect. | Wed 21:33 |
| 3295 | BrianH | Rebcode will come as a side-effect of user-defined function types, which require user-defined datatypes, which requires the plugin model, which requires modules, which may require changes to object!, which are partly based on changes to the core that result from his current VID work. | Wed 21:32 |
| 3294 | Dockimbel | I tend to think that JIT compiling block! values to native code before executing would be the best way (rather that rely on a very different dialect, like Rebcode). | Wed 21:30 |
| 3293 | Dockimbel | Rebcode could have been a solution, but it seems quite low priority for Carl. | Wed 21:27 |
| 3292 | Gregg | I agree Doc. But even when I wrote VB, I often supplemented it with DLLs written in something else, so I'm OK with having to do that with REBOL, but I need to be able to do that easily--more easily than I do today. | Wed 21:25 |
| 3291 | BrianH | For most of my code, it isn't interpreter execution time that makes REBOL more efficient. A typical REBOL program for me saves me days or weeks of work, sometimes more. | Wed 21:24 |
| 3290 | Dockimbel | Gregg: as an old VB coder (still using it these days), I agree. But there's lot of applications you just can write in a slow executing language, and I *really* would like to only code in REBOL. | Wed 21:22 |
| 3289 | Gregg | I've only hit a couple things where REBOL isn't fast enough. Animation (obviously), and longest-common-subsequence algorithm (Rebcode version was much faster, but still not fast). And if I could save JPGs natively from REBOL, I could eliminate one of my largest external dependencies (ImageMagick). | Wed 21:22 |
| 3288 | BrianH | Very little math, much parsing and structure manipulation. | Wed 21:21 |
| 3287 | BrianH | I agree, Doc. I tend to do complex processing on smaller amounts of very complex data, so REBOL is very fast for me. | Wed 21:19 |
| 3286 | Dockimbel | Runtime code generation can reduce size of source code and make it more elegant, but I didn't saw yet, in my own code, any benefit on algorithm complexity (the big O notation). | Wed 21:19 |
| 3285 | Gregg | When VB1 came out, people would talk about how much faster C was for Windows apps. I would counter that VB was much faster than C...usually 6 to 12 months faster. :-) I can argue the same for REBOL in many--though not all-cases. | Wed 21:19 |
| 3284 | Gregg | It depends on your needs, which is why it's important for Carl to know what has the most value for us, so he doesn't spend time on things that don't have as much value. | Wed 21:18 |
| 3283 | Dockimbel | REBOL has nice and clean abstractions that make writing code much easier and much more pleasant, IMHO, it fails to become a general programming language mainly because of lack of performances. As long as you deal with a lot of I/O (like in a Cheyenne) or waiting for user event (like in VID/View), that's not a big showstopper, but when you need to process big amounts of data in memory, you have to rely on another language to do the job in acceptable times. | Wed 21:16 |
| 3282 | BrianH | My code wouldn't compile though. It is fast as-is, and I would rewrite it if REBOL were compiled to be fast then. | Wed 21:16 |
| 3281 | BrianH | The intrinsic feature of REBOL that changes the complexity of an optimized algorithm, for me, is runtime code generation. You can't make a fair comparison to C or Java about that though - you have to compare to Lisp or such. Tool for the job though. | Wed 21:14 |
| 3280 | Dockimbel | I wasn't talking about relative strengths of languages but pure execution performances. I know how to implement fast algorithms in C, Java and REBOL. In REBOL, you can only find some "tricks" that will make your code faster, but there's no intrinsic feature of REBOL language that could change the complexity of an optimized algorithm (that kind of case would fall in my "fair comparison" view). | Wed 21:08 |
| 3279 | BrianH | If it makes you feel better, know this: You can bet that I will be making user-defined function types :) | Wed 21:06 |
| 3278 | BrianH | That would be nice (especially for us if you were to do so, given what you have written so far). Still, you should write to the strengths of the tool. I actually come pretty close right now - Much of the code I write in other languages is actually generated by REBOL scripts, something I would never dream of doing in Java. | Wed 21:05 |
| 3277 | Dockimbel | My concerns about REBOL execution speed are related to my will to use REBOL for every programming tasks, so I don't have to rely on other languages. | Wed 21:02 |
| 3276 | BrianH | wors -> worse | Wed 21:02 |
| 3275 | BrianH | There is no such thing as a fair comparison between Java and REBOL - the closest would be to show how a program written to take advantage of one language's strengths would be wors when translated to the language of the other, and then vice-versa. | Wed 21:01 |
| 3274 | BrianH | Remember, the DO dialect is just one of many. This will be even more the case in R3 (in theory) as it is proposed that user-defined datatypes include function types. This would allow you to retrofit REBOL with different execution engines - including JIT'ed dialects if you like. | Wed 20:58 |
| 3273 | BrianH | Doc, I have a lot of trouble coming up with a short example in Java - Java isn't really useful for that kind of thing. Almost any one-line REBOL program would be faster than the equivalent Java program. The REBOL interpreter is slower than JIT'ed Java code, after you factor out the JIT overhead. REBOL is more than DO though - it has a lot of high-level operations that are quite useful and fast. If I try to write code in REBOL using Java-style algorithms it will be slow. If I try to write Java code using REBOL-style techniques, I would have to reimplement most of REBOL first, and it would be slower. | Wed 20:54 |
| 3272 | Dockimbel | http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=rebol&lang2=java | Wed 20:53 |
| 3271 | Dockimbel | "Anything interpreter-heavy is likely not" So, basically, you're saying that REBOL interpreter *is* slow. Parse dialect is cool, but it's not REBOL dialect. If you make a fair comparison, REBOL is orders (2-3) of magnitude slower than Java. I guess that even Rebcode is slower than Java. | Wed 20:49 |
| 3270 | BrianH | Anything that is native-heavy, uses parse a lot, or does structure manipulation can be made to be really fast in REBOL. Anything interpreter-heavy is likely not. If what you are doing is basic math, consider a calculator (or C). | Wed 20:44 |
| 3269 | BrianH | If your REBOL code is not very fast, it may be algorithmic. My REBOL code is rather fast, though that is because I hand-optimize and don't use REBOL where it isn't appropriate. I don't generally use Java because it is never appropriate for my work, but if it were I might use it. I don't use REBOL to write C code. | Wed 20:41 |
| 3268 | Dockimbel | "I can write REBOL code that is faster than the equivalent code in Java". Can you give us a short example ? | Wed 20:39 |
| 3267 | Henrik | About java being fast: It's speed is outweighed by its size. REBOL may not be extremely fast, but it's nimble enough to not let you notice most of the time. | Wed 20:35 |
| 3266 | BrianH | All of the beta builds are debug builds, AFAIK. | Wed 20:33 |
| 3265 | Henrik | There was an article today on IE8's performance, which was cited as horrible, twice as slow as IE7, but I'm not trusting this source yet, as they could have been testing a debug build | Wed 20:33 |
| 3264 | BrianH | I can write REBOL code that is faster than the equivalent code in Java, and vice-versa. Every language has its strengths. | Wed 20:33 |
| 3263 | BrianH | If you read the whole comic you would realize that what they are proposing are relatively small but significant tweaks to what is out there already. Most of their code is derived from Firefox and Webkit - only the JavaScript VM is new, though its language is not. The process model has already been developed independantly by Microsoft for IE8. The real value this all provides is the source - the other OS browsers will be able to catch up with IE8 quite quickly with this source. | Wed 20:31 |
| 3262 | Pekr | isn't REBOL order of magnitude slower than e.g. JAVA? Not to mention JAVA can't match native code ... | Wed 20:28 |
| 3261 | Pekr | but you could tell that about any launguage, no? Every other language has natives too, so why do we have compliers at all? | Wed 20:27 |
| 3260 | BrianH | You could make a dialect that could compile to native code that would superficially resemble REBOL, and most non-guru REBOL code would likely work in that dialect. It might not be as much faster as you think though - a lot of REBOL is native code already (natives). | Wed 20:26 |
| 3259 | Pekr | I don't need to read more than one page of comic - strating from scratch = REBOL ... they are simply admitting that web failed big way ... | Wed 20:25 |
| 3258 | Pekr | I want REBOL that compiles to native code! | Wed 20:19 |
| 3257 | Henrik | (It's a really good comic!) :-) | Wed 20:13 |
| 3256 | BrianH | Read the comic. | Wed 20:13 |
| 3255 | Henrik | if you read the comic, it says that it compiles js into native code. | Wed 20:13 |
| 3254 | BrianH | Yup, that is so. | Wed 20:13 |
| 3253 | Pekr | I just read some comments about Chrome, and ppl claim that new JS engine is in fact not interpreter or byte code, but that it translates to native code? | Wed 20:12 |
| 3252 | Gregg | If Chrome is lighter on memory, stable, and secure, I'll be there in a heartbeat. | Wed 15:02 |
| 3251 | Gregg | The two things that FF does poorly for me are memory over time use and stability. | Wed 15:02 |
| 3250 | Gregg | Chrome will have more traction with normal people. FF is still geek driven. In that regard, IE has more to worry about. FF has to worry if Chrome becomes better for geeks, e.g. dev, debug, extend. Both could benefit from its source and how they all decide to cooperate. If they decide to compete with Google, it will make a lot more work for them, and how they spin things will be important. | Wed 15:00 |
| 3249 | Henrik | Perhaps Carl should hire a sketchartist :-) | Wed 14:29 |
| 3248 | BrianH | I have, and was surprised at how well they have taken advantage of the comic book communication style. I hope this kind of thing catches on. | Wed 14:24 |
| 3247 | Henrik | http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/ | Wed 14:15 |
| 3246 | Henrik | Read the comic. It's highly explanatory. | Wed 14:14 |
| 3245 | BrianH | I won't be able to use this browser regularly until it supports something like NoScript, but there are some great ideas here. | Wed 14:00 |
| 3244 | BrianH | I would prefer that Chrome use the system theme settings for the color of its title bar and tabs. I hate blue in my UI (here too). | Wed 13:59 |
| 3243 | shadwolf | ctrl+1 tab1 ctrl+2 tab2 etc ... | Wed 11:35 |
| 3242 | shadwolf | chrome is perfect and yumy | Wed 11:33 |
| 3241 | shadwolf | woops the shortcuts are implemented i just didn't look at them ... | Wed 11:33 |
| 3240 | shadwolf | what i want is some keyboard short cuts for navigation like switching frotabs to tabs going next page/prevpage openning a new tab etc... | Wed 11:20 |
| 3239 | shadwolf | i like curbes tab that change from those boring rectangular tab | Wed 11:12 |
| 3238 | shadwolf | i Like the chrome top of the window ... I hate all those browsers where more than 30 percent of the screen is taken by bars ... | Wed 11:11 |
| 3237 | shadwolf | well at least you can track the resource taken by the page you are actually browsing wich is impossible in others webbrowser you just know that they eat all your memory without having a clue why the hell they does so | Wed 11:03 |
| 3236 | shadwolf | i think you really should get your hand on a firefox1.0 and compare it with chrome 1.0 | Wed 10:56 |
| 3235 | Pekr | other thing which denerves me a bit is - activity indicator - there is no stable bottom bar. And once your page is loading, there is message about it popping up and down at the bottom left .... | Wed 10:54 |
| 3234 | Sunanda | Chrome doesn't have enough controls over content yet......Open half a dozen random windows from commercial sites, and you may have multiple Flash ads playing in them all....That'll eat up most of your cpu power just running adverts in the background. Firefox of course has the NoFlash and AdBlock addons. | Wed 10:53 |
| 3233 | shadwolf | same page with chrome -> 32Mo with firefox 72Mo. SHAME you can trash it to the can and those lazy un imaginative developers too | Wed 10:53 |
| 3232 | shadwolf | FF memory management is awfull.... 150 Mo for 1 tab just because i saw in the same tab 3 videos ... | Wed 10:49 |
| 3231 | shadwolf | that's estetical issue ... FF wasn't supporting tabs on its first version. | Wed 10:47 |
| 3230 | Chris | Also, I dislike angled tabs. Wonder how difficult it is to skin? | Wed 10:45 |
| 3229 | Henrik | I'm not sure it's such a big deal. It eliminates the regular titlebar. I had no problems adapting to it. | Wed 10:42 |
| 3228 | Chris | Yep. Spoilt by Camino tabs. | Wed 10:39 |
| 3227 | Graham | same objection | Wed 10:32 |
| 3226 | Pekr | it's not imo... maybe I am just used to FF, but when I look for the particular tab, I look close to the actual page top of the text ... not some distant top bar ... | Wed 10:31 |
| 3225 | Henrik | why? It's actually tabs done right. | Wed 10:13 |
| 3224 | Pekr | Tabs at the top? What a usability nightmare :-( | Wed 9:49 |
| 3223 | Pekr | Shadwolf - FF is complete rewrite of Netscape - it inherits nothing ... maybe just ideas, plus plug-in architecture, which is accpeted by others players too, except MS from IE 5.x | Wed 9:35 |
| 3222 | Pekr | Shadwolf - another experience, right? What are we talking about here? :-) Chrome rendering is based upon WebKit = khtml .... web content = standards. The try to provide some supporing features. You talk like Google finally will give us, what we need, whereas IE, Mozilla, Opera, are all crap :-) | Wed 9:33 |
| 3221 | shadwolf | using crhome i feel like my computer is totaly new ^^ | Wed 9:23 |
| 3220 | shadwolf | i remember the first version of FF that was bugging all around flash player wasn't existing active X controlwas a mess plugin system was almost inexistant .At least we can say for a first shot chrome is really advanced so far i didn't get any problems using it | Wed 9:22 |
| 3219 | shadwolf | FF or opera inherits most of their engines from the nestcape design elaborated on early 90s when the web was mostly some images and lot of text | Wed 9:19 |
| 3218 | shadwolf | I'm sorry but most of the past years effort have been made on the incrresse of the haward side bette ram better cpu better adsl modem better bandwidth but how about the damn software ? | Wed 9:18 |
| 3217 | shadwolf | Since i have safari opera and firefox on my computer i can tell you the chrome is the most acurate it starts immediatly you don't have those 20 seconds of loading and loading a daily motion page takes you 1 seconde | Wed 9:16 |
| 3216 | shadwolf | I like the guys that came with brand new idea or point of view and shoot the ant house to see all the ants running around ^^ | Wed 9:14 |
| 3215 | shadwolf | that a way for microsft to say like dude keep fighting in the backstreets I'm hella no match for you I'm DA BOSS | Wed 9:13 |
| 3214 | Henrik | I don't think it hurts FF at all. In fact the next version of FF will have a much faster javascript engine. The competition between these browsers is very healthy. | Wed 9:12 |
| 3213 | shadwolf | Pekr things rise things falls ... and that's so true that microsoft ensure a maximum market part by merging its webbrowser into its OS this way like it or not use it or not 100% of windows/vista based PC have it | Wed 9:12 |
| 3212 | shadwolf | Pekr no because the goal behind chrome is not to do again another mozilla/netscape clone ... their goal is to say OK we are in 2008 web use is completly different than on 90's we have to propose another webbrowser design more efficient to the use of the actual web | Wed 9:10 |
| 3211 | Pekr | Shadwolf - and? FF is open source too - they could as well submit some ideas in there. That does not change the fact, that if they stop to sponsor Mozilla foundation in the future, FF might get hurt ... | Wed 9:07 |
| 3210 | shadwolf | Before google search engine exists the 2 leading search engine were Altavista and yahoo! altvista disapear and yahoo ! survived offering more services than just search engine | Wed 9:06 |
| 3209 | shadwolf | Pekr chrome is full open source .... OPEN WIDE SOURCE i will say and as google dev team says "Our purpose it to set a step stop on the next generation webbrowser. We have been inspired by the other and we wish chrome will inspire others (they are free to take absolutly what they want from it) | Wed 9:05 |
| 3208 | Pekr | I am not saying there should be limited amount of browsers available. I am just trying to think consequences it will bring to the table .... and FF might get hurt ... | Wed 9:02 |
| 3207 | shadwolf | anyone that knows a little the web knows htat IE is the worst to surf ... it's really slow really secureless and that's why 40 percent of the web user around teh world use FireFox or other webbrowsers. | Wed 9:02 |
| 3206 | shadwolf | pekr the same can be said about rebol why to do another language since you have java and Microsoft .NET | Wed 9:01 |
| 3205 | Henrik | Graham, I didn't notice it until now. I used the Windows task manager before. | Wed 7:01 |
| 3204 | Graham | shift-ESC brings up the Chrome task manager - wonder if it's using part of the windows task manager. | Wed 7:01 |
| 3203 | Pekr | Graham - portals? Have you seen Drupal, Joomla, etc.? First, we need WCMS (web content management system). They work the way, that you divide your portal site into zones (mostly columns), and you specify portlets to run in certain zones, along with z-ordering, and visibility based upon user rights, etc. Then you have workflow tools, DMS, and integration tools ... e.g. you can have portlet, which is static or dynamic html, bus as well e.g. stub (wrapper) for 3rd systems as SAP, etc. | Wed 7:01 |
| 3202 | Henrik | yeah, but it's still neat that you can do it directly from Windows | Wed 6:59 |
| 3201 | Graham | Why? Chrome allows you to kill processes | Wed 6:57 |
| 3200 | Henrik | I can see now that this would make Chrome very resilient to crashes. | Wed 6:57 |
| 3199 | Henrik | try killing a chrome.exe task from the windows task manager. :-) | Wed 6:56 |
| 3198 | Graham | what does websphere/shareportal offer? | Wed 6:53 |
| 3197 | Henrik | But there will be more people who will (unknowingly?) be using alternative browsers, namely Safari through Macs and the iPhone. Particularly iPhone will get a huge amount of marketshare growth, if the numbers are right. | Wed 6:52 |
| 3196 | Pekr | Graham - and that is exactly what I don't like - it makes me headaches :-) I am two week before I have to decide, which way to go - IBM WebSphere portal, or MS SharePoint portal :-) Guys want to go .NET way ... and now eventual third player to the game with own platform :-) | Wed 6:51 |
| 3195 | Pekr | what is R3?:-) | Wed 6:50 |
| 3194 | Graham | thats exactly what they want .. a platform to run their apps | Wed 6:50 |
| 3193 | Henrik | Pekr, perhaps so, about IE. But I still think it's important that we get some shakeups in browser competition. Acid3 brought Safari, Opera and FF together for an intense competition on who could support it first. IE wasn't even in the race and if IE8 turns out to be the disappointment I think it will be, it would get serious problems with future Web 2.0 stuff. I'm unable to test Chrome fully on this slow PC via remote desktop, but with many of Google's previous efforts (Google Desktop anyone?), it would occur to me that they can use Chrome as a common platform for their apps. It is of course far from the elegant solution that R3 will bring, but if they are going to keep at it with web 2.0 apps, one might want the best way to handle web 2.0. | Wed 6:49 |
| 3192 | Graham | since it is FOSS, perhaps someone can build a Rebol browser from it | Wed 6:47 |
| 3191 | Pekr | what is the innovation here? It is marketing trick - WebKit is not able to be properly threaded, so they might use separate task ... and they turn it into advantage on you - "your tabs will never lock" :-) | Wed 6:43 |
| 3190 | Graham | I do frequently | Wed 6:43 |
| 3189 | Pekr | Graham - it seems to me, that ppl sometimes construct their problems to prove somethings which actually is not happening. Did I got some crash with FF3? Yes, more than with FF2, especially with stupid quick-time format. But - did I got some tab locks? No, never .... | Wed 6:42 |
| 3188 | Graham | we need more innovation in the browser | Wed 6:41 |
| 3187 | Pekr | And if Google tries to push their agenda via Chrome (e.g. off-line apps), those new era "quick hacks" should not be accepted, unless it is defined in terms of W3C standard ... | Wed 6:41 |
| 3186 | Graham | if a tab locks up in FF, it locks everything up | Wed 6:40 |
| 3185 | Pekr | for me, it is "just another browser", nothing more. FF is already pretty good, established, with tonnes of extension. Those who claim FF being "slow", should first define what is slow in browser terms? FF is pretty fast.. | Wed 6:40 |
| 3184 | Pekr | Henrik - that is imo incorrect analysis of situation .... I am not sure it will influence IE at all. IE is used mainly by those, who don't care about browsers at all. And as such, those ppl will NOT look at Chrome. If they would be interested in alternative browser, they would use FF or Opera already for quite some time. My take is - if Chrome is going to hurt somebody, then it is definitively FF, not that much Opera. And Google is sponsoring FF by some 70mil USD anually, by presetting Google as default search engine. If they stop, Mozilla foundation can get into trouble a bit ... | Wed 6:39 |
| 3183 | Graham | qtask identifies Chrome as Safari | Wed 6:30 |
| 3182 | shadwolf | the more acurate way to manage memory I ever seen | Wed 6:27 |
| 3181 | shadwolf | the way the memory is handled is verry neat | Wed 6:27 |
| 3180 | Henrik | but the most important part is that IE will now get its ass kicked a little bit more. that is always nice. :-) | Wed 6:27 |
| 3179 | Henrik | it's better than FF3 for sure, but I miss the inquisitor plugin that Safari has | Wed 6:23 |
| 3178 | shadwolf | I like the way the completion is handled | Wed 6:21 |
| 3177 | shadwolf | chrome is going to be this year award best navigator ever | Wed 6:20 |
| 3176 | Henrik | safari is not compatible with qtask either, so there's probably some relation there. | Wed 6:12 |
| 3175 | Graham | I don't like the extra distance to go to switch tabs :( | Wed 4:14 |
| 3174 | Graham | Chrome seems incompatible with qtask! | Wed 4:10 |
| 3173 | shadwolf | on sites with lot of imgs content like hum ..... dailymotion you really see the difference | Wed 0:58 |
| 3172 | shadwolf | ho and is javascript fail to run that just have an impact on the javascript part of the webpage that doesn't crash the full webbrowser or hang the rendering process | Wed 0:55 |
| 3171 | shadwolf | as every page is a process well when you close a page you recover the full used memory no more waste in memory use | Wed 0:54 |
| 3170 | shadwolf | google Chromettechnologie us the a process design and a new javascrip (V8) virtual machine with some cool features like powerfull object based garbage collection and auto object creation (even if you don't say so your javascript is decompose into objects) each tab is a separate process each things that are needed to show a page is rendered simultanously. no asynchronous system so | Wed 0:52 |
| 3169 | shadwolf | hum it's fast even as fast as safari | Wed 0:49 |
| 3168 | shadwolf | sunanada the firefox version of the rebweb plug should run on chrome | Wed 0:48 |
| 3167 | Graham | set default programs doesn't give me an opportunity to add chrome either. | Tue 23:17 |
| 3166 | Graham | setting chrome to be the default application for html didn't work. Rebol still loads FF. | Tue 23:15 |
| 3165 | amacleod | I took a quick look for the binary and any associated files in programs...not there ofcourse. Strange. I wanted to se if REBOL Plugin was saved in same folder. I see gears plugin in plugin but not rebol plugin | Tue 23:11 |
| 3164 | Graham | \chrome\application\chrome.exe | Tue 23:08 |
| 3163 | Graham | %USER%\appdata\local\google\chrome\chrome.exe | Tue 23:08 |
| 3162 | Graham | Mine isn't there. | Tue 23:07 |
| 3161 | Dockimbel | don't know, I just clicked run the install, I don't remember being asked for an install folder. | Tue 23:06 |
| 3160 | Graham | why there? | Tue 23:04 |
| 3159 | Dockimbel | %USER%\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe | Tue 23:04 |
| 3158 | Graham | where's the binary? | Tue 23:03 |
| 3157 | Dockimbel | Chrome looks more multi-process than multithreaded. | Tue 23:02 |
| 3156 | Graham | Now to make chrome the default browser ... | Tue 23:01 |
| 3155 | Pekr | browser is multithreaded because of webkip inability to work with threads, no? | Tue 22:48 |
| 3154 | Graham | I have a page that normally slows down FF ... it doesn't with Chrome. | Tue 21:27 |
| 3153 | Henrik | it treats a page more like a task, so if you have a page with a stuck javascript, you can close the page, like a task in your OS that has hanged. | Tue 21:25 |
| 3152 | Henrik | Pekr, did you skip the part about the browser being highly multithreaded? | Tue 21:25 |
| 3151 | Pekr | exactly, and so there is nothing to admire about new Google's effort ... imo this is completly wrong marketing move. They go against the Mozilla foundation, who they sponsor .... | Tue 21:23 |
| 3150 | Henrik | webkit is generally much faster than Gecko. | Tue 21:18 |
| 3149 | Pekr | as for web browser - is there anything to wonder about? It is simply webkit (khtml) rendering engine, with new implementation of JS, isn't it? | Tue 21:13 |
| 3148 | Pekr | Graham - we are internal staff :-) | Tue 21:12 |
| 3147 | Graham | Pekr, they qualify that by saying they release often to internal staff. | Tue 21:08 |
| 3146 | amacleod | It is much faster than ie or ff3. | Tue 21:07 |
| 3145 | Graham | Seems faster than FF 3 | Tue 21:05 |
| 3144 | Pekr | "At Google, we have a saying: “launch early and iterate.” - maybe we have someone to learn from ... | Tue 20:59 |
| 3143 | Pekr | Well, we can conclude - last year in R3 development brought us - delays, delays, delays, modules shift, delays, dealys, delays, Unicode implementation, incomplete, delays, delays, delays, VID 3.4 shift ... and ... nothing more ... | Tue 20:57 |
| 3142 | Pekr | Maybe Google is fearing REBOL power, so they do abandon it :-)) | Tue 20:53 |
| 3141 | amacleod | Plug in seems to install but apps do not run... | Tue 20:33 |
| 3140 | Sunanda | Looks good....But does not seem to run the REBOL plugin, eg: http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/run-plugin.r?script-name=periodictable.r | Tue 20:31 |
| 3139 | amacleod | Its fast... I like it. | Tue 19:37 |
| 3138 | ICarii | http://www.google.com/chrome | Tue 19:02 |
| 3137 | shadwolf | it | Tue 14:54 |
| 3136 | shadwolf | but i don't know the hour they plan to release ut | Tue 14:54 |
| 3135 | shadwolf | they say today | Tue 14:53 |
| 3134 | Henrik | Is it out yet? | Tue 14:47 |
| 3133 | shadwolf | to donload it ? | Tue 14:37 |
| 3132 | shadwolf | google chrome any link ? | Tue 14:37 |
| 3131 | shadwolf | and now that the defective condensor is replaced the lcd onitor works great ^^ | Tue 14:33 |
| 3130 | shadwolf | k so that was the capacitor who was defective and that's a pity to have to trash a 1 year old lcd monitor only because they didn't put 10 more cents to an electric device that in best quality cost 0.60 cts ... | Tue 14:25 |
| 3129 | Anton | I wondered what else would be measured in µF... :) | Tue 14:23 |
| 3128 | shadwolf | well in french that condensateur :P | Tue 14:22 |
| 3127 | Anton | Aha, wikipedia says a "condensor" is an "Early description of a capacitor". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historic_technological_nomenclature | Tue 14:22 |
| 3126 | shadwolf | ... well that's the electrinic device to stabilise electric signal it store electricy when there is more than expected electricity and deliver the stored electricy when the electric singal if weaker to maintain a stable level | Tue 14:19 |
| 3125 | Anton | Good news, shadwolf ! You fixed your LCD monitor. And I suppose "condensor" translates to "capacitor" in English... | Tue 14:16 |
| 3124 | shadwolf | does someone have the like to download chrome ? | Tue 14:15 |
| 3123 | shadwolf | like my electronic professor would say always check first the more anoying possibility then goes to the easiest | Tue 12:18 |
| 3122 | shadwolf | heat ... | Tue 12:15 |
| 3121 | shadwolf | thiner is the cable less resistant it will be to eat | Tue 12:14 |
| 3120 | shadwolf | it can be the transitors it can be too a freaking little electric wire that cuts itself because of over heat | Tue 12:14 |
| 3119 | shadwolf | screen turning on without showing image is the most annoying thing since it ca comme from lot of diferent sources | Tue 12:11 |
| 3118 | Graham | I use them on servers | Tue 12:11 |
| 3117 | Graham | I think mine are 12 inch monitors | Tue 12:11 |
| 3116 | shadwolf | lcd monitors use a neon like lamp to enligh the background of the LCD matrix and some time that neon tube lamp dies it can be changed easyly | Tue 12:10 |
| 3115 | Graham | don't think so. | Tue 12:09 |
| 3114 | shadwolf | no picture ???? hum really if you point a strong light source to it does it show you the screen content ? | Tue 12:09 |
| 3113 | Graham | oh well, I have plenty of spare LCD monitors. | Tue 12:08 |
| 3112 | shadwolf | then you remove the dead condensor and you replace it by the one and Voila | Tue 12:08 |
| 3111 | Graham | mine turn on .. just no picture | Tue 12:08 |
| 3110 | shadwolf | if they sudently stoped turning on that means one of the condensors is dead in general a dead condensor have a rounded top instead of a flat top so first thing is to identify what is or are the condensors that is dead then you take in note the reference V/µF you go to the radio shark and you buy the same one | Tue 12:07 |
| 3109 | Graham | They're my baby monitors ! | Tue 12:05 |
| 3108 | shadwolf | dead ??? well radio shark is your friend | Tue 12:05 |
| 3107 | Graham | I've only got 2 dead LCD monitors :) | Tue 12:04 |
| 3106 | shadwolf | graham if you want to fix monitors lcd hum .... you need to graduate in micro electronic hahahaahhahaha | Tue 12:03 |
| 3105 | shadwolf | graham ddyou saw the comics about google chrome ? we should do somthing like that to present the tech inside rebol and discuss why CArl should this tech instead of others | Tue 12:02 |
| 3104 | Graham | not much good at the post office! | Tue 12:00 |
| 3103 | Graham | www | Tue 11:59 |
| 3102 | shadwolf | post where ? | Tue 11:59 |
| 3101 | Graham | Yeah .. those things are tricky to open up. | Tue 11:59 |
| 3100 | shadwolf | remplacing the condensor took me 30 seconds it was longer to find out how to open the lcd monitor box than doing the fixing operation ^^ | Tue 11:58 |
| 3099 | Graham | You should post a how to so someone else can fix their monitors! | Tue 11:57 |
| 3098 | shadwolf | thank you i'm happy fixing my lcd monitor cost me 6 dollars including the solding set tools ^^ | Tue 11:56 |
| 3097 | Graham | congratulations. | Tue 11:55 |
| 3096 | shadwolf | I just finished fixing my lcd monitor. Once the condensor 16V 1000µF changed by a brand new one it works like on it first day ^^ | Tue 11:44 |
| 3095 | shadwolf | guess what | Tue 11:43 |
| 3094 | shadwolf | Guess what | Tue 11:43 |
| 3093 | Henrik | For threading, that is up to the OS. | Tue 7:59 |
| 3092 | Graham | Don't think Rebol can take advantage of multiple cores | Tue 7:37 |
| 3091 | Henrik | Very interesting browser project. | Tue 7:26 |
| 3090 | yeksoon | ah.. sorry Graham.. have not been hanging around here for long... did not notice the earlier post on Google's browser | Tue 6:27 |
| 3089 | shadwolf | hum i like the way plugin are handled ^^ | Tue 4:26 |
| 3088 | shadwolf | V8 virtual machine ... | Tue 4:11 |
| 3087 | shadwolf | i liked the explanation about how works the V8 engine | Tue 4:11 |
| 3086 | shadwolf | google-chrome seems to favorise the javascript use ... | Tue 4:10 |
| 3085 | shadwolf | webkit kept simple ..... no it's rebol who keep it simple :P | Tue 3:57 |
| 3084 | shadwolf | i like the multi process idea ^^ | Tue 3:43 |
| 3083 | shadwolf | graham -> http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/ | Tue 3:38 |
| 3082 | shadwolf | but seriously i have a friend of rebol community who made a mixing betwin OS commerce and rebol webplug interface that was really neat | Tue 3:33 |
| 3081 | shadwolf | hum i'm not crazy i'm drunk :P | Tue 3:31 |
| 3080 | Graham | it's okay to be an advocate .. it's not okay to be crazy! | Tue 3:30 |
| 3079 | shadwolf | what it would be once ended ? | Tue 3:30 |
| 3078 | shadwolf | graham ... rebol even in alpha stage toast all ;P | Tue 3:30 |
| 3077 | shadwolf | i'm disgusted by the impact lua have upon scripting languages | Tue 3:29 |
| 3076 | Graham | ie. not alpha ... | Tue 3:29 |
| 3075 | Graham | doesn't it need to be finished yet?? | Tue 3:29 |
| 3074 | shadwolf | why we don't all mail to Google and tell them all those languages are deprecated and for the next generation of webrowser what they need it rebol :P | Tue 3:28 |
| 3073 | amacleod | It hits the DOM though | Tue 3:27 |
| 3072 | shadwolf | but hum javascript does 10 times lesser things than rebol does | Tue 3:27 |
| 3071 | shadwolf | javascript to rebol :P | Tue 3:27 |
| 3070 | Graham | really! | Tue 3:27 |
| 3069 | amacleod | I believe Jave script | Tue 3:26 |
| 3068 | Graham | gears apps are written in Java?? | Tue 3:26 |
| 3067 | amacleod | It will have Gears built in... Now only if we could write Gears Apps in rebol than I would use it. | Tue 3:25 |
| 3066 | shadwolf | plus carl who want to turn VID into a webrowser T____T | Tue 3:25 |
| 3065 | shadwolf | well with all those browser on my computer I will not have any space left to install games :P | Tue 3:24 |
| 3064 | shadwolf | so based on firefox :P | Tue 3:22 |
| 3063 | shadwolf | page 2 of the article Mozilla recently introduced its own upgraded browser, Firefox 3, and has collaborated with Google on a variety of technical issues, including a system for reporting software crashes and to make software browsers more secure. | Tue 3:22 |
| 3062 | shadwolf | it's doesn't support REBOL so i don't give a damn :P | Tue 3:21 |
| 3061 | Graham | it's derived from lynx | Tue 3:20 |
| 3060 | shadwolf | joke sorry ... | Tue 3:20 |
| 3059 | shadwolf | an adaptation of IE ? lol | Tue 3:20 |
| 3058 | Graham | Appears not. | Tue 3:19 |
| 3057 | shadwolf | google browser is based on netscape design ? | Tue 3:19 |
| 3056 | Graham | Umm... see the top of this page! | Tue 3:16 |
| 3055 | yeksoon | Google set to introduce its own browser http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWEN771820080902 | Tue 3:15 |
| 3054 | shadwolf | but even a regular 16V 1000µF would still do it ^^ (since the components you by in details shop are from far a better quality than those the crafter use ^^) | Tue 1:39 |
| 3053 | shadwolf | i think I will change the condensor to a 25V /1000µF | Tue 1:38 |
| 3052 | shadwolf | compared to the supply CM design of a LCD monitor from HP mine is like 10 times with less components | Tue 1:34 |
| 3051 | shadwolf | the design is really cheap no redundance fixing it including the cost of the tolls should cost me 9 euros ^^ | Tue 1:32 |
| 3050 | shadwolf | I identified clearly what condensor is dead that the only 16V 1000 µF on the board .... | Tue 1:31 |
| 3049 | shadwolf | to know the lcd monitor mark I have to disasembly it fully that's a chunghwha ^^ | Tue 1:30 |
| 3048 | shadwolf | it's locked only by a cliping system and 6 screw hiden behin the pedestal | Tue 1:17 |
| 3047 | shadwolf | I managed to open my lcd monitor ^^ | Tue 1:16 |
| 3046 | shadwolf | yeeeeeeeeeepiiiiiiiii | Tue 1:16 |