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


From: henrikmk::gmail::com at: 11-Aug-2008 10:45

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <> wrote:
> People like me are a pest and I know it. > > I am nowhere near being a REBOLer, but I am extremely impressed by what l > ittle I do know. > > I have come up from REXX, I script occassionally and only when I need som > ething done, it can be anywhere between 6 months to a year or two between > projects. Relearning a language is a major problem, hence the simplicity > of REXX is a great asset for that language as well as its natural limit. > > I can see REBOL doing both and doing it well, mostly because of the power > of dialecting. > > REBOL is full-on, especially with the datatypes, and I admit I just can't > really get some pretty simple stuff, for instance I still can't really g > et my head around blocks (how stupid does that make me!). > > My suggestion is REBOL-SIMPLE as a very simple dialect of REBOL resemblin > g REXX and heavily Function based, but using as many characteristics of t > rue REBOL to make transition from it, to the real stuff, as seamless as p > ossible. > > A data-type-less language where as far as the user is concerned every var > iable is a string (using the functions themselves to sort things out). I > would also suggest versions of stem-variables as a simple way to manipula > te related data. There are a few things I can suggest, but the idea is ju > st make it simple (ie every "do" has an "end", every "if" etc.,. simople > and clear often means verbose scripts). > > To most of you this will sound like nonsense and just a useless suggestio > n by a tangental supporter. In the end I will cope with REBOL, I have no > doubt of that. However, REBOL needs to recruit users who are not scriptor > s or programmers in any form, it will become popular if it supplies simpl > e tools to do simple things that easily leads to using REBOL in more comp > lex ways. > > From what I can work out a new dialect, well designed, could do the trick
I think this might not be a good idea (surprise :-)). We all come from different environments of programming and we all have different ways to handle the languages that we've programmed in before REBOL. I often observe people learning REBOL asking, why doesn't it do this or that like C or Java does? Why doesn't it have regexp or why doesn't it do classes like Java does, because the beginner is used to those things from other places. And the truth is that many languages borrow concepts from eachother, where such questions may make sense. For me, an old PHP programmer, the best method was to simply forget everything and start over, and just give 100% in to what REBOL gives you. The "why"s and "why not"s can come when you become good at the language, but they usually don't end up being design flaws, just implementation flaws. Remember that REBOL is designed on its own premises by one man for a long, long period of time, and you must get into the mindset that it doesn't compromise to be like other languages. If you have difficulties with blocks, I'd say, you have problems with 80% of what REBOL is. :-) That's why I think it's a bad idea to start working out something like SIMPLE-REBOL, because the REBOL you have now _is_ supposed to be simple and disguising it as something else would just make learning REBOL much harder. The language is deep enough as it is. -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen