[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
unlimited
> variable part, in Rebol the fixed part is very small and this leaves a
great
> 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
a
> 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
meaning
> 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.
