[REBOL] Re: Cookbook submissions idea
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 13-Jan-2004 0:59
Jason Cunliffe wrote:
>Hi Gerard
>
>>I didn't find any info about this REBOLDOC project on Robert's website
>>
>>
>(Saw an
>
>>OpenDOC entry but nothing else)
>>
>>
>
>...perhaps this explains
>http://www.rebol.net/list/list-msgs/30437.html
>
>Regarding Vanilla. First, good idea to post Vanilla questions to the
>dedicated
>list "vanilla-pudding".
>
sorry to snip your whole talk about Vanilla. While Vanilla or Wiki,
whatever may be nice design to study, I think you overestimate its
usefullness for Rebol. I am sorry to very strongly back-up Robert's pov,
but I can bet that if free version of IOS like sync mechanism would
exist, much cooler scenarios could be created - with rebol, for rebol -
entire network could grow. Don't get me wrong - how is it usefull to
study and deploy non rebol mechanism to document and learn what is rebol
capable of? Of course web-interface is still important nowadays but when
I hear talk about Vanilla to Vanilla communication and similar kind of
stuff, you ppl are working agains basic idea of rebol then, no? -
messaging ... I want rebol way of messaging, not some http, cgi kludges
- what is new about that? For what do we want to use rebol then if not
for rebol native messaging in the first place?
I am far from being good coder to do it myself, but I found things like
Rugby way superior to popular things like XML-RPC. What is so innovative
about it? Its wide popularity? It is a pity Doc did not finish
multiprotocol engine - Uniserve, - run-time pluggable multi-protocol
architecture. Wouldn't it be better to communicate to irc, jabber, rebol
native way of course, etc.?We have Gabriele, Doc, Romano, Maarten, Gregg
cool rebol networking protocols hackers here and I wonder why our
community was not able to come up with something rebol related. Do we
really lack innovation?
-pekr-
