Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)

[Trevor DeVore]

On Jun 7, 2007, at 5:21 PM, David Bovill wrote:

> Flex Builder is there and so are the compilers -

The Adobe open source FAQ page states that Flex Builder IS NOT part  
of the open source announcement.

<http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex_Open_Source_FAQ>

>> Does this make sense?
>
> Yes it does and I totally agree.  If the CGI engine were open you  
> could look
> at that. RunRev could retain the copyright and dual licence it, and  
> if they
> asked for the copyright on all the new submissions - then they  
> could look to
> incorporate any bits that worked for them into the standalone engine.

I don't know anything about the engine but I don't think that adding  
the ability define our own syntax for objects we create is something  
you can just tack on. I think this has to be designed into the engine  
and then the community can build off of that. Jerry and I have  
discussed the possibility of precompilers but the more we talk about  
it the more I think that it is not the ideal solution.

> I remember Scott Raney saying that the engine was basically object  
> oriented
> ages ago, and that he had to drop plans to take it further as there  
> was no
> demand back then.

Interesting. I think that object oriented and extendable syntax would  
be two different things, though I don't know. Rev really needs both.

> One way of thinking about it is to have the ability to create language
> wrappers around otherwise obscure syntax of other langauges and  
> frameworks?

Right. Defining our own syntax would give us that. We would want an  
improved externals interface of course). I would love to have english  
like syntax wrapped around the QT external or a database library.  
Hopefully someday.

> I've been trying to do that with web services by creating objects and
> referring to properties of the object. Having (global) objects that  
> do not
> require GUI elements would help a lot and simplify the syntax too.

Definitely. The bummer now is that you have to use custom properties  
or get/set commands. Custom properties aren't as readable as built-in  
properties (set the uSomePropertyNameInCameCase of field "MyField")  
and are rendered useless when lock messages is true. So the only 100%  
reliable solution is get/set commands which doesn't flow like the  
rest of the language either.

> Would there not be a path to do this which builds on Andres work  
> and uses
> socket or pipes to existing frameworks in the short term - perhaps  
> using the
> .NET DLR stuff to create a language parser in the longer term?

Possibly. Personally I don't use Rev for web based solutions so I  
wouldn't be interested in investigating workarounds or writing  
language parses. There are already lots of web solutions out there  
that are easy to set up and have language features that web  
developers expect.

Now if the Rev engine (running CGI, apache module, etc.) let me use  
english-like syntax throughout my code, create my own objects,  
performed well and had a web framework that made creating web  
applications easy I would definitely use it. But in my mind this  
solid foundation needs to be designed first by the folks at Runtime  
Revolution before you look at opening up the code (which I don't have  
strong feelings for or against).


-- 
Trevor DeVore
Blue Mango Learning Systems
www.bluemangolearning.com    -    www.screensteps.com
trevor at bluemangolearning.com