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

[REBOL] Re: Slashdot REBOL mention

From: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 2-Nov-2001 16:50

Hi Romano, ...
> What i want to say is that, in Rebol, the "ufficial" language is very
poor. It
> is almost all made by variables (there are not instruction (vs functions), > also the operators are functions, syntax and punctuaction marks are very > limited. In many others languages there is a big fixed part and an
> variable part, in Rebol the fixed part is very small and this leaves a
> freedom in programming.
I think, that it can be paraphrased as follows: "Rebol has very simple syntax".(no keywords, little punctuation, etc.) ...
> Yes, also if, to me, is not clear the true difference between a macro and
> non-macro language.
I am not going to write a definition. I point you to the description of C macro language: #include, #define, #ifdef, etc. as opposed to the C language.
> > A "buzzword" that communicates > > this meaning is, that REBOL is a language with meta-circular semantics. > > I'm not sure. I think that semantic refers to the meaning of words, not to > syntax rules. When I listen the word "semantic", > I think to Bind and Context and to the fact che no word in Rebol has a
> outside a given context (no keyword).
These all are semantics. Consider the following code: [ a: | "1"] Syntactically it is Rebol. Even if you knew the binding of the words you wouldn't know what is the meaning of it as a whole, because it would depend on the way how would you interpret it. The meaning (the semantics) differs if we use the code as an argument of DO or as an argument of PARSE, etc.