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

[REBOL] Re: [RSL/UHURU discussion]

From: gchiu:compkarori at: 27-May-2001 11:21

On Sat, 26 May 2001 09:46:08 -0500 Joel Neely <[joel--neely--fedex--com]> wrote:
> 2) There was bitter debate over whether to allow people > to use other text editors and operating system files > for FORTH source code, or whether to stay with the > requirement of FORTH-managed disk space (in 1k > "blocks") > and a FORTH-only 1k-at-a-time block editor as the > only > way to write code.
I don't think of this as being an elist attitude that was causing this debate. The underlying debate to the above was not whether files were better/worse then blocks, but by using files, one would lose the discipline involved in writing small "words".
> The REBOL language certainly doesn't have some of the > myopic > constraints of the FORTH language, and RT is certainly
Again, I don't see this as a language constraint, but one of a programming philosophy.
> Bottom line: regardless of what I think of either FORTH > or > Perl as a programming notation, I much prefer the Perl > community attitude of "Everybody's welcome; there's more > than one way to do it." I'd rather REBOL have the > acceptance > and respect of Perl than to eke out a marginal existence > in > the "splendid isolation" of FORTH. >
And my take is that you can write Rebol as Forth if you so chose to, where Forth is not the language but the philosophy. -- Graham Chiu