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

[REBOL] Re: ubf for Rebol?

From: bry:itnisk at: 11-Nov-2002 11:37

Jan Skibinski wrote:
>It seems to >me that it is in similar spirit as XML-RPC is (as opposed to Soap), >but at the binary level.
My opinion is basically that is presents a simple and extensible language for describing binary information. The comparison to Soap or XML-RPC is appropriate to UBF(B) which has a protocol description language. There are three modules I guess I would call them, UBF(A) , UBF(B), and UBF(C).
>I know very little about Erlang, except some buzz around it. Its >position among functional languages is somehow curious.
I found Erlang to be a nice cross between Haskell and Rebol, feelwise (Haskell in that it was functional Rebol that it was quite a bit easier than Haskell and also more focused on the practical IMHO), I was going with it instead of Rebol for a while because it was dead easy to pick up whereas Rebol's syntax can still sometimes throw me for a loop(hope there's no pun there). If I were to be working on any heavy telephony apps erlang would probably be my choice. Also has very nice libraries for working with ASN.1
>Phil Wadler was instrumental in Haskell development. He wrote >many good articles, many of those about monads. He is also >a co-inventor of java extensions: Pizza and Generic Java.
Yeah Wadler is also instrumental in building Xml Query so he's got his misses as well. :)
>It certainly would not be a very big deal to implement it. >But who would pay for the development? Another words, >is there any strong motivation for doing that?
Probably not, I am often hit by these wild enthusiasms when I come across something new and cool, until the cold light of the next workday reminds me I still have my own stuff to implement.