> -----Original Message----- > From: Petr Krenzelok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [REBOL] Re: DLL Hell = Rebol library script version > > > > Robert M. Münch wrote: > > >On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:28:36 +1300, Andrew Martin > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>When distributing a Rebol script, > >>include all the functions (words) that the main script requires. Of
> > > I just hope I don't understand you correctly robert, but aren't you > suggesting having rebol distributed with all of our scripts? > That is MS > way of doing things, waste of bandwidth etc. There should be central > engine - rebol/whatever installed on your hd, it should check for its > updates and scripts should come as packages (as IOS desktop does). I > would hate to redownload 500KB each time just because someone changes > one function in script ... > I think the main differentiation which is often missed, is that there is a line between script and application. Usually scripts handle one given and succinct task. These benefit from linking. Applications usually include user-driven, long-standing executables which usually will be several hundred kb in size. Not because they aren't well programmed, but because of the sheer amount of things they do... These don't... this is the target for which steel's library engine is meant. -MAx -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
