[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