[REBOL] Re: facts we will have to face ...
From: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 24-Oct-2001 17:36
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf
> Of Matt Fitzgerald
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:02 AM
> To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: facts we will have to face ...
> I agree to some extent, but should we really restrict the functionality of
> any language? A language has to be expressive and the more you can express
> and the way you express it, the more elegant it is.
Hi, well it depends on. The C guys strategy was: Here you have a couple of
keywords to work with. With them you
can express all you want, go for it. And the mass did gone for it.
Is playing a movie or a sound file a language functionality? I don't think so
others might think it is. I like RT approach to implement several high-level
functions/words with Rebol itself. So what we have is a mix: One part is the
core-interpreter (Ups, that's the name of the product ;-)) and we have an
integrated standard-library. View is adding a GUI library and IOS is the
application framework. Where to put sound and movie functionality?
As soon as such a support needs native speed, it needs to be put into the core
from the concept view... I'm not sure if this is the way to go.
It's very hard to balance where to put features into and on what kind of
implementation level to do it. Robert
