[REBOL] Re: Need help for justification of using REBOL as dev language
From: coussement:c:itc:mil:be at: 12-Apr-2001 9:34
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GS Jones [SMTP:[gjones05--mail--orion--org]]
> Sent: woensdag 11 april 2001 16:04
> To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: Need help for justification of using REBOL as
> dev language
> From: "CRS - Psy Sel/SPO, COUSSEMENT Christophe, CPN"
> > I have found many args
> > in the J. K. Ousterhout's article too:
> > http://dev.scriptics.com/people/john.ousterhout/scripting.html
> > About this article: a very interesting comparison is given by the figure
> 1 -
> > level/typing -
> > Has anybody any idea where to situate REBOL on the graph ? I assume it
> > should be similar to Tcl/Perl ?
> > Perhaps there are any folk at RT who could tell me what the range of
> > instructions/statement for REBOL is ?
> I would place REBOL around the C, C++ range on the x coordinate, and
> somewhat higher than Tcl on the y coordinate based on my knowledge (and
> opinion ;). In that everything starts as a string in Tcl code (the
> compiler apparently makes some assumptions about type in order to improve
> performance), it is considered fairly typeless. C is typed on the face,
> allows type coersion/conversion almost too easily (accounting for the ease
> of making errors). What I know/recall of Java is that it is strictly
> and in fact sets fairly tight constraints on type conversions.
> As far as the amount of work done by any given statement, REBOL is clearly
> more "efficient" than Visual BASIC and usually more efficient than Tcl (by
> "guestimated" factor of 25 to 50%). Some of the efficiency lies in REBOL
> being more "functional" in that more commands can be strung together and
> thereby avoiding the explicit assignments. And other portions of the gain
> are in the inclusion of clean abstractions of a number of protocols,
> including file and http manipulations.
> Glad the reference was helpful.
> --Scott Jones
Thanks for your estimation, I will add it to my document !