[REBOL] Re: ubf for Rebol?
From: jan:skibinski:sympatico:ca at: 8-Nov-2002 11:20
Thanks for posting it Bryan. I took cursory look at the documentation
but have not formed any strong opinion about it yet. It seems to
me that it is in similar spirit as XML-RPC is (as opposed to Soap),
but at the binary level.
I know very little about Erlang, except some buzz around it. Its
position among functional languages is somehow curious. On
one hand it is an untyped language, on another - it is quite a successful
practical language. As a result FPL community likes to point it out
as an example of FP success - notwithstanding its lack of types.
At the bottom of his whitepaper Joe Armstrong writes:
UBF was inspired from a number of different sources:
The type notation in UBF(B) is similar to that suggested by
Phil Wadler and Simon Marlow for work on an Erlang type checker.
The protocol definition language in UBF(B) is similar to a suggestion
of Wadler for typing Erlang processes.
Do you see what I mean? FPL gurus were quick to add type
checking to Erlang to suit their needs. And as I recall,
they did it very early - in a year or so after Erlang was announced.
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.
Simon Marlow works for Microsoft Research and is highly
involved in several Haskell projects: hierarchical libraries
> They've already got UBF drivers for Erlang, OZ, Tcl and Java,
> how about Rebol!?
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?