[REBOL] Re: R: Re: REBOL 3.0 mentioned on the blog!
From: nick::guitarz::org at: 12-Mar-2006 13:52
What attracted me to Rebol was that you could just do so many things
immediately, without a long learning curve. The fact that it's not limited in
the same ways as other simple-to-use tools, is what makes it useful beyond the
initial learning curve. We all appreciate that Rebol works easily with
Internet protocols, so many data types, GUIs and graphics, etc. - all
natively.
Those things are neatly wrapped up in the language so that you don't have to
work at a low level, or use an OO approach with lots of libraries and layers -
simple things are done simply
. The main thing I'm hoping is for that trend
to continue - for RT to continue to wrap up more things that _have_ to be done
at a low level at this point, using the OS directly or some other development
tool. Keep the language interface straightforward, consistent, and
useful. Make the current version work across more modern platforms and
keep the
distribution as small as possible - that's what attracted us all to Rebol in
the first place, and what keeps us devoted to it. It's powerful now. I don't
think we need any new paradigms, just new native abililities. If something is
_not possible_ in Rebol at this point _without accessing native OS
calls_, then
those are the things that I hope are added. Most of those things are
related to
hardware control: better multiplatform support for sound, CD music, maybe a
simple native multiplatform interface to webcams, etc. Those are things I
could really use, and which would make Rebol ultimately useful. Anything that
can be implemented in Rebol - as it exists - doesn't need to be added
by RT. Protocol extensions can be the responsibility of the community.
Everyone has
different needs and desires, and it's clear that Rebol can't stay small if
everyone's wish is granted. Doc Kimbel's MySQL interface, Gabriele Santilli's
PDF dialect, Christian Ensel's menu system, Andrew Hoadley's 3d engine, Oldes'
flash dialect, etc. are so useful, but those things don't need to be part of
the interpreter. Clearly, they were added as third party creations. If it's
possible to implement common video codecs in Rebol as it exists, for example,
then that can be the responsibility of the community. If it's not _possible_
to implement a video codec in Rebol, then we need native tools in Rebol
to make
it possible. Speed up the things that need to be sped up, provide
access to the
hardware in a way that makes it possible, etc. If RT wants to provide
that sort
of thing modularly, that's great, but not at the expense of a small minimum
distribution (of course, those who are happy with 1.3 could just continue to
use 1.3...).
Beyond that, I hope RT really works at marketing. A bigger community means a
more productive and capable language via more third party tools. That's where
Rebol's really lacking. No one uses it. Carl and many of the Rebol gurus are
design geniuses - my sense is that they should devote more of their energy and
vision to promoting the superior design of Rebol, and making it commercially
acceptable to use it! Success in that area would be success for everyone
involved :)
We use language as an interface to the machine's hardware and OS.
Rebol lets us
control many of those things natively, with a language design that's
brilliant. RT implemented GUI and graphics beautifully. They added
things like serial I/O
natively. We need more native abilities like those - anything that has to be
done directly with the OS and/or some other tool. I don't see anything wrong
with the language design - I only see a few capabilities missing - continuing
the trend so that Rebol isn't incapable in certain areas will attract more
people to use Rebol, and will continue to make it more productive for all of
us.
Quoting Giuseppe Chillemi <gchillemi-aliceposta.it>:
