[REBOL] Over 40 Platforms make for good press, but.... Re:(3)
From: jsc:dataheaven at: 24-Sep-2000 5:22
First:
Ok I think some people might have problems with the
sarcastic way I talked upon this topic in the last post.
So I beg Your pardon - I will try to be more rational in my
opinion to this important topic.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> It just depends who your targeting. The 1% "other"
> category or everybody else.
But only if we try to think in old terms and look backwards
in history. If we try to go new ways we should think about
using other than mainstream solutions.
> It's not about which is better, but which is actually
> being used.
If we discuss what platforms should be targeted for a
new approach like REBOL we _should_ look for the
better alternatives not for the failures of history.
> I remember drooling over an Atari 800 with a whopping
> 8k of RAM (expandable to 16k if you had the extra
> $400.)with a casette deck for a drive, but couldn't
> afford it. Same story with the first Mac's. Ended up
> going the clone route like everybody else. Even
> Amiga's looked nice, but just didn't have the status
> quo.
But thats not the point - I do not say we should target a
old forgotten platform like this Atari 800!
The other poster wished to have REBOL on an old dead
OS (DOS) not I.
What I try to say is, that NEW technologies like REBOL
need to be targeted to NEW computers. (Similar like
Ted stated)
I thought we are here to take REBOL to the future!
I see no future in Microsofts "One fits all" concept.
RT seem to have realized that and so REBOL is
targeted at a broad range of different machines.
I've seen machine-controlsytems by Siemens that use Windows
NT instead of a RealtimeOS. They tried that with a special
hardware so that Windows only had to give the commands
what to do and the special-hardware is responsible for
realtime-actions. A huge expense has to be done to use a OS
like Windows NT for a purpose it never was thought for.
I've also seen Windows 9x boxes at internet cafes. The maintainers
said that they are much easier to use than a Windows NT system
or maybe UN*X. After weeksof destructive deeds against this systems
the maintainers tried to make the machines scure by using special
Win9x security tools. But suddenly only one person could maintain this
machines not otherperson understood the chaos.
We are now at some new point:
We have a new language that tries to do NEW things in a NEW way.
This language has a good theoretic foundation, similar to languages
like CommonLisp or Scheme. It doesnt't try to simulate old concepts
like Java or Python and it's not an ugly hack like Perl.
Now we have to think how the future SHOULD look like (_not_ "could")
Should we stay in the line of Microsoft & Co.?
Should we orient us on old dead things?
Think different!
You realize - I cannot speak on this Topic and staying fully rational.
We need to be motivated to get out of our lethargy.
Regards
Jochen Schmidt
