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

[REBOL] Re: [Fwd: Re: RSL: Rebol Standard Library]

From: agem:crosswinds at: 25-May-2001 22:37

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ursprüngliche Nachricht <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Am 25.05.01, 14:03:56, schrieb Joel Neely <[joel--neely--fedex--com]> zum Thema [REBOL] Re: [Fwd: Re: RSL: Rebol Standard Library]:
> Hi, Volker, > I guess everything I have to say can be summed up in these > statements: > 1) We agree (more than you seem to perceive) with respect > to a smart-client-dumb-server strategy. I can't speak > for anyone other than myself.
Sorry for the sound. Iam not an native english writer and was more thinking than writing, partly trying to confirm me to myself ;-)
> 2) You seem to prefer to develop by cut-past-and-edit. I > prefer to have the option of re-using code units that > package generic functionality. Each of us should be > able to program in his preferred style.
Hm, we agree here to. I try to avoid version-conflicts by copying the script to my project-directory, ignoring updates sometimes, but avoiding hidden code-breaks (i have only to obey core rebol changes). If i apply an update, iam very used to visual diffs, like mgdiff on linux or windiff. Thats a surprising efficient way to see what has changed, and mix my changes with updates. Also rebol is short and says a lot »between the lines«, so it is more efficient to write an »open« script with some places to edit by the user, then to generalize, blackbox and add all the usefull options. You see, in rebol we often answer to »how can i do« with »look at [source send]«, where we otherwise (java, perl) would talk about api-secrets. And this »open« scripts have to be changed by me..
> I do have some more specific responses to point you raised > in your email, but I'll cover them separately to avoid > creating another war-and-peace post. > -jn-