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

[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: