Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search


From: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 21-Sep-2000 12:40

[edinburgh--veitchi--co--uk] wrote:
> Foreword: > > Here's a private email I sent in response to Ryans comments > about my post to this list. > > Ryan, I hope you don't mind me making this public, > > Mark
No problem, my preference actually. Here is my rebuttal: Does Coka-Cola handout thier recipe? Nope. Does Pepsi have the recipe to Coka-Cola? I am sure they have it figured out. But if Coka-Cola handed out thier recipe from day 1, do you think Coka-Cola would be what it is today? Maybe, though maybe not. Given the fact that REBOL has been around for 3 years, we could roughly estimate it would take the same number of excellent programmers the same amount of time to complete the task. This delay is the protection. When (if) it becomes appearent to the larger companies that REBOL's business plan is successful, they will look into doing such a thing themselves (monkey see, monkey do). Recreating an open source implementation is like taking a test with the answers on the chalkboard. In such instance, I would guess that a REBOL competetor could be made within a year, quadruple the number of programmers, within 6 months. 6 months and a good marketing campaign could easily capture "first in mind" from REBOL, the chess equivelent of check--with REBOL likely bieng outnumbered. Sure there are Coka-Cola fakes out there, but they're not the real thing. First in mind is an important marketing law, especially so when dealing with languages. This is why I think we should let things play out a bit longer before showing everyone how its done. --Ryan Veitchi Edinburgh wrote:
> I agree with the points you made regards my post to the > Rebol user list. > > However one minor point that I take issue with is that an > open source Rebol would somehow open up REBOL > to software competitors. > > I don't think this is a valid point, Microsoft & other software > companies have the finance & the resources to implement > a lookalike of ANY software product. They can hire the > brains to do so or just buy out the said company. > > Rebol at the high end is a Lisp/Scheme like interpreted language > built I believe on a Two Stack Forth like engine. > These are mature technologies and have been implemented > in various dialects & languages over the years. > > There is nothing in the underlying technology that Microsoft > or any other capable language programmer could not > re-implement if they so wished, the fact that they haven't done so > either means they do not see REBOL as significant (a gross > under-estimate in my opinion ) or they have big sunk costs > & investment in existing technologies like Java, C++, Visual Basic, > Delphi etc. > > REBOL's magnificence in my opinion comes from it's simplicity > & correctness of design. It is a human centric programming language > & a very powerful one at that. > > However I believe that to protect our users interests from predatory > competitors like Microsoft an Open Source REBOL / OSCAR > released under the Gnu Public License - copyleft, would prevent > any malevolent force taking REBOL away from us at some future date. > > I also think Carl & the Gang need as much help & support as they can get. > They will make their money from selling high end corporate > & professional REBOL products. Rebol/core is free and is stated > to always be available for free. So if it's already free then why not > totally free in the open source sense. > > ANSI C "printf" and Pascal "Writeln" are compiled commands which > work almost identically to the REBOL 'prin & 'print words both of > which are Rebol natives! and almost certainly based on something > similar to either of the above C or Pascal code. > > The Rebol community I feel would learn a great deal about REBOL > by re-implementing it in C or Pascal or Scheme etc, Brian, Gabriele > Elan etc from the list all have deep language & computing knowledge > & experience in various languages as well as having worked on > language implementations so the skills are there. > > It is your choice as to whether to participate or not. > I hope you will reconsider & hope you will remember > I don't want to fragment REBOL or hurt Carl or the REBOL team > in anyway, I support & will continue to support REBOL. > > I believe in Carl's design skills & technologies, he is a proven > master. I & others merely aspire to emulate such wizardry & > gain a deeper understanding in the process, improve our > skills etc. > > Regards programming in C - I agree - Yuck!!!! > > I would much rather write OSCAR in REBOL but until > and or if Carl ever a compiler for REBOL, then unfortunately > there is no choice but to get your hands dirty in a more > cumbersome language like C or Modula/Pascal etc. > > We're on the same side. > > Fellow Rebol friend, > > Mark Dickson > . > please reply to [mark_dickson--edinburgh6--freeserve--co--uk]
-- Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst 707-468-5400 We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world. --Buddha