[REBOL] Re: help with mail attachment please
From: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 15-Aug-2001 12:43
David, you must take into REBOL Technologies is no IBM. It is a very small, lean,
company, operating with a bare minimum of resources. I am sure that under the
current high tech financing market, they must only fight battles they can win. I
would expect once investors realize this companies potential, and profits begin to
flow, that we will see thorough support for the Mac, as well as other operating
systems that maybe didn't quite make the initial list.
David Kachel wrote:
> Holger Kruse said:
> >REBOL/View on Mac DOES support opening a script with OpenDocEvent (basically
> >clicking on a script icon, causing View to be start and execute the script),
> >but this does not help in passing arguments, because MacOS does not appear
> >to support anything resembling "command lines".
> >No, it is more complicated than that. Part of the problem is that MacOS
> >does not allow multiple instances of an application to run simultaneously,
> >i.e. unlike all other operating systems it does not support a model in
> >which an application is started with certain arguments such as a script
> >name, does its work, and then quits, and multiple such instances can run
> >in parallel.
> >Instead MacOS forces an application to multiplex internally, based on
> >handles. This may be fine for GUI-heavy applications which sit in an event
> >loop most of the time, but it is a big problem for applications which are
> >primarily "processors" (e.g. interpreters) and have an inherently stateful
> >execution model. This is why REBOL/View on Mac clones itself during
> >installation, allowing multiple instances of REBOL to run at the same time,
> >as different binaries. Apparently this is the only "solution" to this problem
> >on MacOS.
> >The next problem is that MacOS, unlike Unix, Windows, AmigaOS, BeOS,...
> >apparently has no system() call (or anything similar), i.e. does not
> >allow interaction with other applications in an industry standard
> >fashion, but requires proprietary methods (AppleScript again, I assume).
> >If MacOS HAD a shell that provides Posix-like features and API then you
> >COULD do it with REBOL. It is not REBOL's fault that MacOS does pretty
> >much all aspects of computing differently than everyone else :-).
> >REAL AppleScript support (along with support for other platform-specific
> >scripting languages, such as ARexx) is something that is on our list.
> >Unfortunately at the moment other things have higher priorities. Adding
> >to the difficulties is that currently we do not have a real Mac expert
> >on staff at RT.
> The above statements only serve to prove my point. I reiterate:
> What we are talking about is NOT a minor feature. If *nix platforms had
> no command line, you would implement the needed connections in whatever
> way required.
> Macs do things differently. So what! They require a different kind of
> implementation, i.e., AppleScript. So what! That is the way it is done on
> a Mac. And despite the fact that OS X (*nix based) does have a command
> line, it STILL uses apple events and AppleScript. AppleScript will
> continue to be the way such things are done on the Mac platform, by all
> but the most die-hard.
> Your complaint that you haven't made Rebol 'the same' on the Mac because
> 'the Mac is different' is at best weak and certainly leaves Rebol's
> "cross-platform" and "universal" claims ringing quite hollow indeed.
> In short, what you are saying is: "Rebol is universal and cross-platform,
> except on the Mac, because on the Mac it is inconvenient."
> Depending on whose statistics you like to use, the Mac holds from 5% to
> 10% of the computer market. It is reasonable to assume, since a
> disproportionately high percentage of web sites are served from Macs, and
> because Rebol is a network-centric language, that interest in Rebol on
> the part of Mac users would at the very least parallel the Mac's market
> share. Which means that at least 5% of the people subscribed to this list
> ought to be Mac users or at least Mac-centric. Based on what I've seen so
> far in the way of responses, I'll bet the figure is substantially lower.
> In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find that I'm the only one, or one of
> only two or three. If I'm right, then you have already lost your battle
> to become a universal/cross-platform language, because one of those
> platforms, at your own insistence, has chosen to ignore you!
> Do I think Rebol is better than Perl and other languages? Absolutely, and
> by a wide margin. Is the concept of Rebol brilliant? Is Carl Sassenrath a
> genius? Unequivocally. Will I be using Rebol? No... the people who make
> Rebol don't think it is important to make Rebol useful to me because I
> want to use it on a platform that is non-conforming. While the concept of
> Rebol is visionary, at least this one aspect of its implementation is
> not, which I believe dooms Rebol to end up on the scrap heap with the
> HUNDREDS of OTHER brilliant, visionary new languages already there.
> David Kachel
> theMac Workshop
> "Democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
> Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the election."
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
> a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
> nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin
> "Millions of sniveling cowards shivering in the corner,
> begging government to protect them from every threat,
> real and imagined,
> have stolen liberty from the rest of us.
> A government drunk with power, gleefully complies."
> -David Kachel
> ...(paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin)
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.