[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:
[cut]
The type notation in UBF(B) is similar to that suggested by
Phil Wadler and Simon Marlow for work on an Erlang type checker.
[cut]
The protocol definition language in UBF(B) is similar to a suggestion
of Wadler for typing Erlang processes.
[cut]
>>
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
and GHC.
> 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?
Best regards,
Jan
bryan wrote:
