Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Author |
Message |
Nolan Darile #1 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
I'm about to purchase a VMWare license, since I need to use certain windows apps from within Linux. But, I'm currently a bit short on cash, and though I'd like to purchase the latest and greatest Dylan compiler for windows, I can't. So, I'm curious. Is Harlequin Dylan 1.2 still available for free? If I download it, what problems will I experience if I attempt to distribute compiled binaries with it? I think I remember reading that it currently does not work on win2k; will I be losing any additional functionality if I don't purchase FD and instead use Harlequin?
|
Wed, 20 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Chris Doubl #2 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote:
> So, I'm curious. Is Harlequin Dylan 1.2 still available for free?
The personal edition is still available for download from the Harlequin ftp site. Quote: > If I download it, what problems will I experience if I attempt to > distribute compiled binaries with it?
I may be wrong but I don't think the personal edition allowed the distribution of the compiled binaries for anything but personal use. Quote: > I think I remember reading that it currently does not work on win2k; > will I be losing any additional functionality if I don't purchase FD > and instead use Harlequin?
Yes, you will be losing additional functionality. You will not have COM support, socket support, database support and I don't think it allowed c-ffi usage for anything except the win32 library files that shipped with the compiler. There are some new DUIM gadgets in FD that are not in HD and there are some DUIM bugs that appear in practice in HD that are fixed in FD. Incremental compilation support and macro expansion is also supported in FD 2.0 but not HD 1.2. All the above is from memory so I may be wrong about the distribution conditions, functionality available, etc. What about downloading the 30 day trial of FD and using that instead? Chris. -- http://www/double.co.nz/dylan
|
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Maury Markowit #3 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote: > HD that are fixed in FD. Incremental compilation support and macro > expansion is also supported in FD 2.0 but not HD 1.2.
Incremental compilation? Maury
|
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Scott McKa #4 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote:
>> HD that are fixed in FD. Incremental compilation support and macro >> expansion is also supported in FD 2.0 but not HD 1.2. > Incremental compilation?
During active development, you can set the compilation mode to a "looser" mode in which, when you do Project->Build, the compiler figures out which things have changes and compiles just those things and any downstream things that might be affected. This can greatly improve the compilation time for Project->Build. But you get something much more useful when you use "loose" mode compilation -- you get incremental *interactive* compilation as well. This is how it works: compile a project in "loose" mode, and the do Project->Start. Play with your project for a while, then use the Application->Pause to pause it. You can now go into the editor, modify a method, and recompile just that one method. If you are using Emacs-mode, just type control-shift-C to do this. The recompiled method will get compiled and uploaded into the running application, and the application will run with the new method. Provisos: - The code generated for loose mode compilation is a little slower than tight mode compilation - The compiler doesn't do quite as good a job warning you about type-related things - Recompiling methods or adding new generic functions and new methods is the stuff that works best. Recompiling classes works, but none of the old objects get updated to conform to the new class. Even with the above provisos, I believe you will find that being able to do interactive compilation will increase your productivity radically.
|
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Maury Markowit #5 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote: > During active development, you can set the compilation mode > to a "looser" mode in which, when you do Project->Build, the > compiler figures out which things have changes and compiles > just those things and any downstream things that might be > affected. This can greatly improve the compilation time for > Project->Build.
Forgive the stupid question: isn't this how all make systems work? Quote: > and the do Project->Start. Play with your project for a while, > then use the Application->Pause to pause it. You can now go > into the editor, modify a method, and recompile just that one > method. If you are using Emacs-mode, just type control-shift-C > to do this. The recompiled method will get compiled and uploaded > into the running application, and the application will run with the > new method.
Ahhh, Link-n-Go, the mysterious vanishing feature. Cool, I didn't know the Dylan systems offered this. Quote: > - The code generated for loose mode compilation is a little > slower than tight mode compilation
That seems odd - isn't this just a message to the runtime to move some pointers? Why is the generated code different? Quote: > Even with the above provisos, I believe you will find that being > able to do interactive compilation will increase your productivity > radically.
For sure, I've been asking for this one in Obj-C for a while now. Not trivial to implement, but doable, as Dylan demonstrates. Maury
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Scott McKa #6 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote:
>> During active development, you can set the compilation mode >> to a "looser" mode in which, when you do Project->Build, the >> compiler figures out which things have changes and compiles >> just those things and any downstream things that might be >> affected. This can greatly improve the compilation time for >> Project->Build. > Forgive the stupid question: isn't this how all make systems work?
'make' systems generally have a compilation granularity of a single file. Dylan's unit of compilation, by the definition in the language, is an entire library. This allows, e.g., optimizations across an entire library rather than within a single file in the library. Thus, the default compilation mode is a library, that is, all the files in the libary. In "loose" mode, the compiler tries to do less work, but also does less optimization. Quote: >> and the do Project->Start. Play with your project for a while, >> then use the Application->Pause to pause it. You can now go >> into the editor, modify a method, and recompile just that one >> method. If you are using Emacs-mode, just type control-shift-C >> to do this. The recompiled method will get compiled and uploaded >> into the running application, and the application will run with the >> new method. > Ahhh, Link-n-Go, the mysterious vanishing feature. Cool, I didn't know >the Dylan systems offered this. >> - The code generated for loose mode compilation is a little >> slower than tight mode compilation > That seems odd - isn't this just a message to the runtime to move some >pointers? Why is the generated code different?
In loose mode, the compiler can do fewer optimizations, because the type system is treated a bit more loosely. Quote: >> Even with the above provisos, I believe you will find that being >> able to do interactive compilation will increase your productivity >> radically. > For sure, I've been asking for this one in Obj-C for a while now. Not >trivial to implement, but doable, as Dylan demonstrates.
Definitely not trivial. Here's a feature I really like in Fun-O Dylan. Build a project, then open one of the files in the editor. Click right on the name of a function of a class, and select something like "Edit Methods" for a function, or "Edit Superclasses" for a class, and watch what happens.
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Hugh Green #7 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote:
> > During active development, you can set the compilation mode > > to a "looser" mode in which, when you do Project->Build, the > > compiler figures out which things have changes and compiles > > just those things and any downstream things that might be > > affected. This can greatly improve the compilation time for > > Project->Build. > Forgive the stupid question: isn't this how all make systems work?
If I remember/understand correctly, the "compile just enough" operates not just at the level of file timestamps (like usual make systems) but also at the level of individual definitions after parsing. I.e., if you've changed only a couple of definitions in a file, only those ones (and any which depend on them) will be processed after parsing. You could get almost the same effect by storing each definition in a separate /source record/. The Dylan language design allows for what we would think of as "source files" actually just being views into a database. FunDev's "composite buffers" produced by commands like "Edit Methods" give you a taste of how this would work. Quote: > > and the do Project->Start. Play with your project for a while, > > then use the Application->Pause to pause it. You can now ... > > [Link-n-Go] > Ahhh, Link-n-Go, the mysterious vanishing feature. Cool, I didn't know > the Dylan systems offered this.
I think only FunDev does just now (i.e., not Mindy or Gwydion's d2c -- dunno about the fabled Apple Dylan tech. release). BTW, I think in 2.0 you don't actually even have to pause the application manually -- the environment pauses and resumes it for you. Quote: > > - The code generated for loose mode compilation is a little > > slower than tight mode compilation > That seems odd - isn't this just a message to the runtime to move some > pointers? Why is the generated code different?
Without going into detail (which I don't fully understand ;-), I think that in "Production Mode" the compiler can sometimes optimise away the layer of pointers it needs for interactive recompilation. This is why there are more restrictions on what you can do interactively in a Production-Mode app. HTH, Hugh
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Maury Markowit #8 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote: > If I remember/understand correctly, the "compile just enough" operates not > just at the level of file timestamps (like usual make systems) but also at > the level of individual definitions after parsing. I.e., if you've > changed only a couple of definitions in a file, only those ones (and any > which depend on them) will be processed after parsing.
Ahh, I suppose it would have to be that way. I assume it keeps some meta-information around for this purpose? Quote: > You could get almost the same effect by storing each definition in a > separate /source record/.
I've seen such dev systems before. ObjectMaster basically did this, although it was largely faked out back onto files, which I think is the "right" solution. Quote: > I think only FunDev does just now (i.e., not Mindy or Gwydion's d2c -- > dunno about the fabled Apple Dylan tech. release). BTW, I think in 2.0 > you don't actually even have to pause the application manually -- the > environment pauses and resumes it for you.
Neato, another small but simplifying feature. It's always amazing about how tiny little changes can have overall huge effects on the development process, and yet vendors simply don't DO this in their products. Quote: > Without going into detail (which I don't fully understand ;-), I think > that in "Production Mode" the compiler can sometimes optimise away the > layer of pointers it needs for interactive recompilation
Ahhh. Maury
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Scott Rib #9 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
FD Personal Edition is free. Quote: > So, I'm curious. Is Harlequin Dylan 1.2 still available for free? If I > download it, what problems will I experience if I attempt to > distribute compiled binaries with it? I think I remember reading that > it currently does not work on win2k; will I be losing any additional > functionality if I don't purchase FD and instead use Harlequin?
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Andreas Bog #10 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote:
> separate /source record/. The Dylan language design allows for what we > would think of as "source files" actually just being views into a > database. FunDev's "composite buffers" produced by commands like "Edit > Methods" give you a taste of how this would work.
Apple Dylan actually did store all of the code in a database. There were no source files, just database views. Quote: > > Ahhh, Link-n-Go, the mysterious vanishing feature. Cool, I didn't know > > the Dylan systems offered this. > I think only FunDev does just now (i.e., not Mindy or Gwydion's d2c -- > dunno about the fabled Apple Dylan tech. release). BTW, I think in 2.0
Apple Dylan had it all. Oh, how I hate them for terminating the project just when the result was finally in reach. Andreas -- "Anyone need a DVD decrypter for Linux?
| cut -b5-36 | perl -e 'while(<>){print pack("H32",$_)}' | gzip -d" -- James Brister
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Maury Markowit #11 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote: > Apple Dylan had it all. Oh, how I hate them for terminating the > project just when the result was finally in reach.
Well I actually bought it at WWDC'96, and I have to say I understand their reasoning. I mean when you consider: 1) it didn't run well on PPC - or at all in some cases 2) the UI side was rather outdated, making it hard to use for "real" apps - and the widgets were MacOS based, with all of their silly limitations like 32k of text 3) it was SLOW. For what reason I can't say, but I had a fast PPC at the time, and it was a DOG 4) people within Apple ignored it, so it wasn't getting the testing it needed Let's also remember this was the Amelio days, the company had to shed weight. In that light, losing Dylan seems like a no-brainer. Yes, it's sad what happened by doing this, but those things happen. Maury
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Scott McKa #12 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote:
>> separate /source record/. The Dylan language design allows for what we >> would think of as "source files" actually just being views into a >> database. FunDev's "composite buffers" produced by commands like "Edit >> Methods" give you a taste of how this would work. >Apple Dylan actually did store all of the code in a database. There >were no source files, just database views.
FWIW, one reason Harlqn Dylan/Fun-O Dylan is implemented the way it is, is that I became convinced of the wrongness of Apple's approach in the "corporate world". If you had a large investment in source code, would you rather (1) use the proprietary source code database of some non-mainstream company, or (2) use a widely used, well-debugged, standard system such as CVS? Also, pure database views often miss out one very important axis, namely, "the view the author intended you to see". I used a large database-backed doc system, and it did not do a good job of this, and let me tell you that it was a nightmare. Quote: >> > Ahhh, Link-n-Go, the mysterious vanishing feature. Cool, I didn't know >> > the Dylan systems offered this. >> I think only FunDev does just now (i.e., not Mindy or Gwydion's d2c -- >> dunno about the fabled Apple Dylan tech. release). BTW, I think in 2.0 >Apple Dylan had it all. Oh, how I hate them for terminating the >project just when the result was finally in reach.
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Kim Barret #13 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote: > >Apple Dylan actually did store all of the code in a database. There > >were no source files, just database views. >FWIW, one reason Harlqn Dylan/Fun-O Dylan is implemented the >way it is, is that I became convinced of the wrongness of Apple's >approach in the "corporate world". If you had a large investment >in source code, would you rather (1) use the proprietary source >code database of some non-mainstream company, or (2) use a >widely used, well-debugged, standard system such as CVS?
For what its worth, VisualAge uses a source code database approach. They provide a hook to use an external version control system, using a Microsoft API for doing that sort of thing, which is supported by such products as SourceSafe and ClearCase. (Unfortunately, CVS doesn't seem to support the use of this API, which has kept me from going to the effort of trying any of the VisualAge products myself, even though they look pretty spiffy.)
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Kim Barret #14 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote:
> > Apple Dylan had it all. Oh, how I hate them for terminating the > > project just when the result was finally in reach. > Well I actually bought it at WWDC'96, and I have to say I understand their >reasoning. I mean when you consider:
I assume your speed complaints have to do with the development environment. Such complaints were well deserved, particularly running on PPC, where the initial technology release was running emulated. The second TR, which was ported to a later PPC-native version of MCL, was considerably better, though still had a lot of room for improvement. Recall that the TR was essentially pre-alpha. One of the areas where substantial improvement was needed was in the performance of the development environment.
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Maury Markowit #15 / 44
|
 Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Quote: > FWIW, one reason Harlqn Dylan/Fun-O Dylan is implemented the > way it is, is that I became convinced of the wrongness of Apple's > approach in the "corporate world".
I agree completely. Has anyone here seen ObjectMaster? It really did try t make it look like a db but be source files. Maury
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
Page 1 of 3
|
[ 44 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] [3] |
|