World: r3wp

On the other hand, if Pekr wants to be a Rebol wizard and specialize 
in that, it's his privilege to do so..

I do believe that the competition is great, and by the way for a 
much as I love Rebol. I don't see the like the ultimate end of computer 
science,, as matter of fact I see some drastic limitations like Rebol 
can't bootstrap Rebol, because rebol is not compilable.

Yes, Pekr should become a Rebol wizards and demostrate so. Instead 
of talking with property about other languages.

I'll agree with that :)

Ruby and Rails both are making a lot money for some people. How many 
Pro-Applications makin $$$$$ does rebol has. And I mean public knowledge 
not embedded internal projects?

Internal projects should count. Ruby's first major US user was NOAA, 
I think.

My knowledge of this is IOS and QTask. I don't know how much IOS 
produce, but I believe Qtask or more specifically Quilts will make 
a lot of money.

But I am diverging. I will repeat it Rails phylosophy of pragmatism 
and convention before configuration or reinvention is great; and 
the 10 min tuturials are true, becoming and medium level usert takes 
one or two weeks, and with medium-level user you are already programming 
lots of great things.

With abstractions, unit-testing, versioning, environment scoping 
(development, testing, production), autodomentation, portability, 
compatibility (any SQL db here), etc. Rails rocks.

Yeah, I can do a lot of  this with Rebol, but I will spend more than 
10 minutes to have basic CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Destroy) code, 
and much more it I want all of the rest.

Jaime - you never so my code, so don't try to pretend I am not able 
to code. That I don't produce any code does not mean I am not able 
to. I have different orientation at my current job, that is all. 
And of course, I am really not a good coder to provide code of Cyphre 
level quality.

Jaime-  I don't by typical crap what you try to suggest here. So 
typical - even Carl used it - show some code, or shut-up - like there 
are no other important project areas needed.

such attitude just show me some elitist aproach ....

but I have enough of commone sense, being productive historically 
in 5 or 6 languages (producing some real life apps), that I can judge, 
even with limited understanding, what is good for me and why. I just 
tried to say, that Ruby does NOT attract me, I would better use Python, 
which I like better.

and really no - I don't judge language by ability to make money, 
nor if it has some killer app available - because that fact itself 
does not help me to better master such language.

I did not bashed Ruby, but exactly the same nonsense attitude some 
guys are showing over the net. Noone would bark at Ruby, if Rails 
would not exist. Now quite opposite - I can see some of my friends 
talking Ruby as a cool language, because it has Rails, while asking 
them for some language details, they are NOT able to provide any.

Not compilable - thats no showstopper for bootstrap. Both forth and 
squeak can do it. Needs restrictions while bootstrapping, but is 
possible. Should be possible in rebol too.

Talking of rails .. I've got a dvd player (Sony) where the sled has 
jumped the rails :(  Anyone have a link on how to fix these things?

Typical cruddy design where an expensive player depends on some cheap 
plastic.

Pekr, I am not being elitis, I just think your comments are off place. 
If you can not learn a language doesn't mean the language is bad. 
Ruby is a great language and the fact that it has rails, gems, rake, 
and some many other modules makes it great. By great I mean that 
it enhance productivity.

How many times has Rebol send you in loopholes, because a feature 
doesn't exist like certificates, one that you request every so often. 
That is a productivity problem, one that a large community addresses 
quickly.

So I don't say that rebol is bad. I just said that Rails is good 
and very good for Web2.0.

And Rebol is very good a creating dialects.

Each has its niche.

Volker compilation of rebol is due to context free grammars. If you 
take this restriction you could probably have a bootstrap of rebol. 
But you can not compile just any rebol program. So this is a problem.

Also even though Forth and Smalltalk are dinamic languages they don't 
have CFG. So the problems is not dynamicity.

Pekr, I guess my reaction was due to this comment "Good old Jaime 
adheres to hype :-)", this is simply  not true. I recommended Rails 
because I liked the productivity boost that I got in a recent project, 
not because of its popularity.  I  have read about different Programming 
Languages and found that  each one  has its strengths and its weaknesses. 
But independent of this you can always learn a new technique that 
will expand your horizons..

Can we build a rebol framework similar to rails?

is there any point?

Yes. We can but it requires a lot of work, and then your second questions 
makes you wonder.

What is it about Rails that makes Ruby a good fit?

We are building Quilt on Rebol, and it seems to be going very well. 
 But we have nothing to compare to.

BTW, such framework is being built, and it is called Quilt. The backend 
engine behind QTask. I can wait to get my hands on it.

Rails uses a lot of OO messaging smalltak style. Which ruby allows 
natively, so I think this lowers the impedance match. Such dialect 
can be constructed in Rebol. But does it means that is the best approach?

Jaime - ok, I correct myself - to what you said by "rebol sending 
me to loopholes" and calling it a productivity issue, from that point 
you are probably more than right ...

by my comment regarding "hype", I really mean something ppl should 
be carefull about - that most ppl I meet, even in corporate environment, 
talk about hypes. And maybe "hype" is not the correct word, maybe 
it is about "trends"? They even don't know what ajax is in particular, 
yet they tell their boss, they will use new tool for their job - 
ajax, and their boss said - hmm, I read something about it - it has 
to be cool and we will support it ;-)

in fact, I am one of two "right hands" (it is a saying in czech language) 
for our CTO. And the reason is, that I provide him with opinions 
not tied to any products of my liking. Our Delhi group, would do 
everything in Delphi, our Lotus Notes group, would do everything 
in Lotus Notes, the same goes for VB and SAP folks, and of course, 
jokingly, I would do everything in Rebol. But - things need some 
level of understanding of current/historical situation in the company.

that said - last time my rebol friend Bobik, who did nice apps in 
Rebol already, needed suggestion regarding the project in the company 
he works for, it was me, who suggested him not to use rebol, but 
go with php, apache, and it was becaue it was much better fit for 
their company in their situation. And if someone will ask about fast 
web development, I have already one friend I suggested him to look 
into Ruby on Rails ....

... and it is imo the same reason and experience, why I suggested 
you to look into Mikrotik routerOS some time ago, and would be probably 
valid, if you would not have coded your own system ....

Reichart - what is Quilt? Something related to Qtask?

Graham - actually I thought about "porting" Rails to rebol and calling 
it "rebol on trails" :-) But last time looking at rails api, it is 
already large jog done. OTOH we would only clone API that already 
exists ... dunno ....  because whole web 2.0 mess is here, to be 
finally able to do what REBOL/View can do, just using browser ...

maybe a 'bridge' for REBOL-Ruby.


allowing Ruby to call or access REBOL 'objects' directly and vice 
versa.

Now we know Flash and Ruby try to go outside the browser, so I wonder 
how usefull Rails will be in such a territory. I still think, that 
IOS like "platform" for app delivery, is still unmatched. Dunno what 
Altissimo is supposed to mean, but having rebol services or uniserve/beer 
whatever based framework for app distribution, like it was planned 
with Morpheus or even Altme, would be a win ....

Volker compilation of rebol is due to context free grammars. If you 
take this restriction you could probably have a bootstrap of rebol. 
But you can not compile just any rebol program. So this is a problem.

We are talking about bootstrapping. There is no need to compile every 
program. Its only needed to have a subset to build the interpreter. 
And that one must be able to generate machine-code.

Thats what forth does with meta-compilers and squeak does with slang. 
Ugly, so a pretty good motive to do most in meazzines :)

Geomol, you've got competition - inspired by DeluxePaint, Lunapaint 
is new painting program done from scratch, or so is my understanding 
- http://sub-ether.org/lunapaint/

hmm, but maybe I already posted it in the past :-)

http://www.easy2remember.name/media/51/Spore-game-video.html<--- 
for gamers, this looks mightily impressive. An evolution game with 
a 100% dynamic world.

actually not just a world but an entire universe

For inspiration, Wright looked to the 

demo scene," a group of (mostly European) coders who specialized 
in doing a whole lot with a little bit of code. Their procedural 
programming methods were able to, for example, fit an entire 3D game 
in 64K, using mathematics to generate textures and music, etc. "I 
just found this incredibly exciting," Wright confesses, describing 
the kinds of work that he saw come out of the demo scene."


So here's what he did: he recruited an elite strike team of coders 
(who, if you were to believe his slideshow, dressed like ninjas) 
and put them in a 

hidden facility" to experiment with new ways of giving the user powerful 
tools and generating tons of dynamic content without armies of content 
creators. Best of all, he fired up a demo and showed his audience 
the results... "

this is almost a REBOL like way to create games :-)

Volker you are right. But I was thinking on Rebol bootstrapping itself 
and offering incremental compilation too. Just like Dylan or CL. 
Here is an excerpt from wikipedia. "Common Lisp has been designed 
to be implemented by incremental compilers. Standard declarations 
to optimize compilation (such as function inlining) are proposed 
in the language specification. Most Common Lisp implementations compile 
functions to native machine code. Others compile to bytecode, which 
reduces speed but eases binary-code portability. The misconception 
that Lisp is a purely-interpreted language is most likely due to 
the fact that Common Lisp environments provide an interactive prompt 
and that functions are compiled one-by-one, in an incremental way."