[REBOL] Re: Rebol Framework suggestion
From: chrismorency:videotron:ca at: 10-Sep-2001 21:02
> I'm coming to REBOL from VB and I'm used to having an IDE myself. While
> there are certain things I would love to have in an IDE for building REBOL
> apps (like Intellisense and QuickInfo syntax help), and for
> helping me learn it as quickly as possible, I don't know if modeling REBOL
> tools after the things we're familiar with is the best approach. REBOL is
> revolutionary and I think, to take full advantage of what it can do, we
> need to focus on the end rather than the means.
Well, I come from a VB background too, but if you take the example of
SmallTalk, AFAIK the mere windows, buttons, sliders, visual objects we are
daily using are coming from the Alto Palto Xerox era, and these visual
objects were first implemented for the SmallTalk development environment (I
may be wrong here), but that's not the point. I would prefer to see a IDE
built in Rebol for Rebol than any other thing, I would prefer that because
it makes sense IMHO !
> Imagine your REBOL script is an agent running around the internet.
> Will everyone you want to talk to be using the same type
No, to that I must agree ;) however, what if it does ? I mean, one of the
beauty of the try? is exactly this !
> There will be times that we want to try to guarantee correctness
> to the n-th degree and tightly control things but what if we
> said "I want to talk to this guy so I ask if he speaks a dialect
> I know. If not, is there a mediator out there somewhere who can
> translate for us?" I don't care what kind of object he is.
> I only care if we can talk to each other. Maybe this comes full circle
> and dialects fill the position of IDL/ODL stuff but, wow, what a
> difference that would be IMO.
Dialects could indeed provide a great link between IDL and ODL. I haven't
been looking at dialect yet, I should put my mind to it soon ;-)
> I would love to help build some reusable libraries for REBOL but I don't
> know what the best approach might be due to my inexperience with it.
> So far I'm just working on some basic building blocks to get to know
> REBOL (stack, queue, dictionary, string manipulation functions). As
> I'm picking things to work on, I'm looking for those things that I
> really use all the time. REBOL has features built in which will
> eliminate a lot of the libraries I've written for myself over time.
Consider me at the same point you are... still learning, but I'm still
planning, and willing to share, build with others...
> Rather than try to put a big OO layer on top of REBOL, I'd say "think
> small". What are *concrete* 3 things you rely on every day, or in
> every project? By concrete I mean avoid abstract concepts like
> inheritance. Reading ASCII files, mapping COBOL
> records, designing GUIs, one-off code generators, that kind of stuff.
Well, maybe the project I'm working on wasn't really meant to be developped
in Rebol, but in a sense I know it is... light, distributed, internet
based... Which language would help me build this better than Rebol ?
> Just some thoughts (from my position of near ignorance <g>).
Good points to my suggestion (from my own position of near ignorance *g*).