[REBOL] Re: What does REBOL fix?
From: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 17-Dec-2003 9:19
> JC> What is essential is easy interoprability.
>
> What is essential is simplicity. Any new piece you have to add
> adds complexity, and complexity will in the end turn out against
> you.
Yes very good point.
But there is a trade-off point where modularity aids and manifests
simplicity.
Go past that threshold and too much modularity, too many options, become too
complex.
'Simple' includes leveraging existing know-how, familiar contructs, tools,
docs and community.
Simple includes not having to write the book first or explain it to anyone.
Simple includes mail order $130 six-speed Huffy bicycle from Walmart tha is
made in China, vs. goign to Siberia and inventing one. Though the latter may
be much more fun and spritually rewarding.. it depends. Reading /watching
the recent flutry of articles and docs about the Wright brothers amazing
prpgress in a few shortyears is full of apt examples.
For example, XML may be inelegant compared to Rebol native approach, but it
has a growing attraction has it gains mass adn momentum. Therefore, using
XML in a Rebol application might actually be 'simpler'. Is it simpler to use
Apache when you know how, than to write, document, test and debug your own
server? Is it simpler to develop multimedia intefaces in Rebol orwork work
with tools like Flash which handle text, graphic, sound and interfactivity
way better.
Oldes' make-swf is perhaps the most significant Rebol dialect which tests
the issue of interoperability vs. simplicity. It is a amazing work in
progress, but still requires one to a) understand flash, b) know some
actionscript c) know Rebol and d) know the make-swf dialect.
Rebol strikes a very elegant balance I think.
What it still lacks is a smart IDE/browser component to help one to move
faster with syntax and dialects.
Loaded dictionaries and context sensitive support.
I imagine that is a very hard thing to write. But perhaps Rebol makes it
easy..
- Jason
