[REBOL] Re: On mutability and sameness
From: robbo1mark:aol at: 20-Jun-2001 14:59
JOEL,
that is precisely my point, REBOL cannot completely describe or implement REBOL completely,
just as C had to be written in something else first, assembly, which is written in machine
code, which is implemented in hardware, which is based on quantum electronics / physics,
which is written in mathematics, which is written in symbols on ink on paper, which is
made of wood, which is organic materials, made on bio-chemistry according to the laws
of chemistry / physics / mathematics / ad-infinitum!
But in computing terms you CAN start somewhere and that is at the MACHINE level and build
up from there.
Whether this is easy or clarifies things probably not, but is can be done and IS how
things are done.
You cannot yet completely implement ALL of REBOL in REBOL but with a C Compiler ( just
guessing! ) you CAN write a REBOL interpreter, and you can do it in JAVA, see FREEBELL,
so you CAN safely drop down to that level if need be. YOU did so to prove a point about
equality and sameness!
cheers,
Mark
In a message dated Wed, 20 Jun 2001 2:47:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Joel Neely <[joel--neely--fedex--com]>
writes:
<< Hi, Mark, and all
While discussing this thread with one of my esteemed collegues,
she made an obervation I thought worth sharing...
[Robbo1Mark--aol--com] wrote:
> It is for this reason that you sometimes have to use C or
> Java or something else to "explain" or implement REBOL.
>
So what is it that we have to have to "explain" C?
Couldn't we use that (whatever it is) to explain REBOL,
and dispense with C altogether?
--
It's turtles all the way down!
joel'dot'neely'at'fedex'dot'com
