[REBOL] Re: [OT] Rebol vs Ruby
From: carlos:lorenz:gma:il at: 1-Nov-2005 8:39
Hi Gregg,
I wonder if I can have your authorization to publish a translation to the
Portuguese of this list of diffs at my FORUM at
www.nobrenet.com/rebolbrasil<http://www.nobrenet.com/rebolbrasil>
TIA
2005/10/31, Gregg Irwin <greggirwin-mindspring.com>:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> PC> I would like to ask if anyone could give a brief summary
> PC> of what's the difference between Rebol and Ruby.
>
> Ruby is a programming language for programers. REBOL is a language
> used to exchange information; sometimes that information is a script
> for the computer to execute.
>
> Ruby has ~40 reserved words. REBOL has none.
>
> Ruby has ~7 datatypes. REBOL has 30+. Ruby has a number of standard
> classes for things that REBOL does not (e.g. bignums).
>
> Some things that are built into REBOL, e.g. net access, are available
> as Ruby libraries.
>
> Ruby is case sensitive and uses sigils. REBOL is not case sensitive,
> and words (variables) can contain all but a few special characters.
>
> Ruby has cool block and iterator support, making it more dynamic than
> some other programming languages. In REBOL, everything is data.
> Evaluating data can make you think it's code you're writing.
>
> Ruby is pure OO, and has mixins rather than multiple inheritance.
> REBOL creates objects from prototypes. An object in REBOL provides
> context and acts as a namespace.
>
> With Ruby, you have to write in an OO manner (obj.method). REBOL was
> designed to build dialects that let you express things any way you
> want.
>
> Ruby has special built-in vars like Perl; REBOL does not.
>
> Ruby has regexes; REBOL has the PARSE function.
>
> The Pragmatic Programmers.
>
> Ruby has a standard debugger and profiler; REBOL does not.
>
> REBOL has built-in HELP and SOURCE functions, including full support
> for reflection with doc-strings. Ruby uses a separate tool to extract
> embedded documentation written in a lightweight text markup format.
>
> You can write Ruby extensions in C; REBOL can call DLLs.
>
> Ruby on Rails. Rebcode.
>
> REBOL/View has a built-in GUI system (full 32-bit compositing for
> every face, 14+ pipeline effects, AGG draw engine). Ruby needs
> to use something like Tcl/Tk for GUIs.
>
> Ruby is more popular than REBOL, and seems to be growing faster.
>
> REBOL can create standalone EXEs that have no external dependencies.
>
> A zipped REBOL/Core is a ~190K download; ~350K for View. The
> one-click Ruby installer for Windows is ~14.8M (it contains extras
> like Tcl/Tk).
>
> It's not easy to compare REBOL with programming languages, though it
> can hold its own on their turf. You're comparing apples and oranges to
> a great extent. You really need to compare REBOL to Ruby+XML, for
> example.
>
> Ruby is a blend of ideas from other programming languages, with some
> new bits thrown in (no offense meant to Matz; Ruby is what I might be
> using if not for REBOL). REBOL is different; really different; and we
> don't know how to exploit it fully yet.
>
> Ruby is meant for programmers; REBOL is meant for humans. So, Ruby is
> better if you're coming from Perl or an OO mindset and don't want to
> stretch your mind too much; just get things done in a language that's
> similar to what you know, with a few new twists.
>
> REBOL is great if you want to stretch your mind and learn to think in
> new ways. It's also an excellent choice if you want to build Domain
> Specific Languages (DSLs), which have been around a long time, but are
> one of the "new" trends on the horizon from MS and others. REBOL's
> built-in GUI system is also a standout feature, as is its small size.
>
> HTH!
>
> -- Gregg
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
> lists at rebol.com <http://rebol.com> with unsubscribe as the subject.
>
--
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:
Carlos Lorenz
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:
