[REBOL] Re: REBOL-SIMPLE dialect
From: henrikmk::gmail::com at: 11-Aug-2008 10:45
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <greg.schofield-iinet.net.au> 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
> 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
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
Henrik Mikael Kristensen