Home   Archive   Permalink



How to transform REBOL script into EXE?

How to transform REBOL script into EXE? Thanks a lot!

posted by:   Derek Chang       19-Dec-2010/0:55:39-8:00



http://re-bol.com/rebol.html#section-7.3

posted by:   Nick       19-Dec-2010/1:13-8:00



If you bought the Rebol SDK and support Rebol Technology, you have an encap to regenerate an EXE under Windows but also you can generate under Linux and MacOSX.
    
http://www.rebol.com/docs/sdk/encap.html
    
To buy SDK :
    
https://secure28.inmotionhosting.com/~rebolc5/cgi-bin/order.cgi?cmd=buy∏=sdk-cmd

posted by:   nve       19-Dec-2010/9:52:18-8:00



And also look at:
http://www.rebol.com/sdk.html
http://www.rebol.com/docs/sdk/encap.html


posted by:   Endo       19-Dec-2010/9:54:51-8:00



you can use winrar, there is an option to compress and create an executable file.
mind you it's just a self extracting executable, but if you just want an exe file, that will do.


posted by:   YUEM       15-Jan-2011/9:22:18-8:00



How does the SDK encap work? I'm just wondering how much overhead is added to the size of your script when you create an exe. Suppose you created an exe of "Hello World", how big would the exe be?

posted by:   Mike       25-Mar-2011/6:44:23-7:00



An encapped script basically consists of a small header, the REBOL executable, and your scripts.
    
For example, the AltME application (not sure if it has been packaged using the SDK or something homegrown -- but the effective is the same) is around 800K:
     http://www.altme.com/download.html
Of that around 650K is REBOLview and the rest is a fairly large (by REBOL standards) application consisting of 150K's worth of scripts.

posted by:   Sunanda       25-Mar-2011/6:59:19-7:00



Ok so basically encap just bundles a copy of the interpreter with your script and other resources, is that correct?
    
I was thinking that the SDK might compile your source code which would create smaller exes but it seems not. In that case you might just as well use the method which Nick shows in his tutorial if all you're interested in is distributing your programs without the users needing the REBOL interpreter.

posted by:   Mike       25-Mar-2011/7:50:35-7:00



Yep, REBOL remains an interpreter, so it needs the interpreter included.
    
If you want a compiler, the new Red language is going to be the ticket.

posted by:   Kaj       25-Mar-2011/10:10:12-7:00



Yes, I'm very excited to watch Red's progress!

posted by:   Nick Antonaccio       25-Mar-2011/21:34:19-7:00



Has anyone tried Red yet ?    
    
what really interests me in Red, is it's
1) compiled.
2) it's really open.


posted by:   yuem       26-Mar-2011/8:02:38-7:00



I think Kaj has done the most by implementing 0MQ.

posted by:   Nick       26-Mar-2011/22:49-7:00



Red is not a real language yet, currently mainly because you can't access elements in memory blocks yet. The current examples just move data from one place to another. Those places can be very advanced in the case of the 0MQ binding, but you can't manipulate the data yet.
    
However, this is a few weeks into the public development of Red, and a few days ago there were other fundamental you couldn't do yet. It's amazing what can be done already, and it's developing very fast.

posted by:   Kaj       27-Mar-2011/15:20:10-7:00



This translated version of RebelBB has some very motivating discussion about Red:
    
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digicamsoft.com%2Fcgi-bin%2FrebelBB.cgi
    
I think Red has the potential to push REBOL out of it's currently unpopular position: open source, greater execution speed, compiled applications, potential to run on new platforms, business sensibility from the beginning, etc.

posted by:   Nick       29-Mar-2011/2:43:17-7:00