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

[REBOL] Re: [OT] Rebol vs Ruby

From: carlos:lorenz:g:mail 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<> TIA 2005/10/31, Gregg Irwin <>:
> > 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 <> with unsubscribe as the subject. >
-- *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-: Carlos Lorenz *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-: