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

[REBOL] Re: Scope? Any advice would be appreciated.

From: dvydra2::yahoo at: 30-Jan-2001 18:15

Elan, Thanks for your reply. A few clarifications are in order: --- Elan <[rebol--techscribe--com]> wrote:
> A few comments: > > 1. SQlWindows is not a programming language. It is a > product - a > database management system - that happens to use > SQL. The DBMS product > may not have a major market share, but REBOL is not > a dbms product, it's > a programming language. So we should be comparing it > to SqlWindow's > programming language. And SQL is quite alive and > kicking last time I > checked ;-).
You are probably confusing SqlWindows with SqlBase. SqlWindows (now Centura developer) uses a language called SAL which is quite OO, even supports multiple inheritance.
> True, dBase includes its own programming language, > as does Clarion (so > you never programmed in Paradox, huh?). But in both > cases we are again > talking about programming languages that are > specific to a DBMS product. > So the competition here is about DBMS products, not > about programming > languages. In other words dBase and Clarion (and > SqlWindows) lost the > database management system competition, not the > programming language > competition (of course, after all Oracle is also SQL > based).
actually Clarion bought TopSpeed which had cross-compilers for Pascal and some other language, I cant recall. It was something like MS .NET. I wrote systems in Clarion that had nothing to do with a DBMS.
> As for Forte, I'm not quite sure which Forte you are > referring to. I am > aware of a Forte Newsgroup reader, and there's a > Fort Java IDE. Right, > there's also a theorem prover called Forte. You must > mean something > else?
sorry I meant Forte 4GL, my once employer, now owned by Sun. I guess they liked the name adn
> 2. As for the specific REBOL feature we were > investigating: statically > scoped local variables have been part of C for > roughly thirty years and > have happily made it into ANSI C++. That's pretty > mainstream. > > The only thing that a C/C++ programmer has to > realize is that a (REBOL) > word that references a literal block (under all > circumstances) acts > similar to a (C) local variable that is a pointer > (word) referencing a > locally declared static buffer (or a globally > declared buffer) (== REBOL > literal block). Even though you may reassign the > pointer to the buffer > each time you enter the function, if that buffer was > declared static (or > the buffer is global), then the buffer will contain > whatever was > previously put into it during the previous > evaluation of the C function. > There's really nothing to it. > > My argument then is that if REBOL's success depends > on the acceptance of > REBOL's literal block behavior, then, given that > mainstream languages C > and C++ have been supporting an equivalent feature > for quite a few > years, REBOL is quite safe.
actually C++ had a poor reputation in many IT shops that tried to build a system with it without having proper "geeks" on staff.
> I don't think that REBOL is weird, and I doubt that > the weirdness of a > language is a guarantee for its success. But Tcl, > Perl, and Visual Basic > still seem to be doing quite well ...
its all in the marketing, right? :) anyway, I really like REBOL. We started using it instead of JavaCC to write a domain-language to XML compiler. So far, it works well. david ===== please reply to: [david--vydra--net]