[REBOL] Re: Language Popularity & Network Effects; Ruby & Mongrel
From: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 21-Nov-2007 13:30
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Ed O'Connor wrote:
> messaging language. I think I'd be struck down to hear someone say,
> "Boy, you need to get your hands on a good, solid messaging language!"
I can tell you - but I can't tell you where - that there are places where
rebol is used extensive for "messaging" as in TCP/IP. There's may be
more than what I know of - but there are organizations that (and big
ones at that) that may be using rebol, but are not going to advertise
it like google might advertise its use of python.
> I think that REBOL's strong point is it's convenience. I like the fact
> that I can fire up the interpreter on Windows or OS X and use it to
> manage my local data files with minimal fuss. Or that I can parse &
> extract content from web pages quickly
I use rebol extensively for web scripting not so much for for network
stuff, for that it runs rings around python. but read on....
> The areas where I find REBOL is not so simple is in managing errors,
> networking, encryption, xml and building DSLs. I'm not saying the
> power isn't there, just that you need to have a good deal of expertise
> in these areas to leverage these features.
Oh if rebol could just report the file and line number of an error!
Python has really got it down for error handling!
To elaborate on what Alessandro has said about protocols - absolutely.
And they don't have to be native, could be mezzanine or in libraries.
Speaking of libraries, what many, many who examine rebol and remark
to me is "Why is there no libraries? What is up with that? Is this really a
serious programming language?"
as a starting point, there should be libraries. Libraries that are reviewed
vetted and blessed by RT. In my opinion, rebol is crippled without that,
because fellow programmers are telling me that is one thing that rebol
I know, I've said this before, many times on this ML.
I'll probably say it again.