[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.