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

[REBOL] Re: facts we will have to face ...

From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 23-Oct-2001 21:00

> > I mean - if Rebol should be regarded being platform, it would have to
> > us to implement "whatever" in the language itself, not being dependant
> > language kernels directly - I mean - sound, video, math, etc., the area > > where rebol speed will be badly noticed. > > Very good point. A possible solution might be something similar to the > mechanism employed in a number of JVMs. They cache native code that has > been interpreted. Or perhaps a nice (for pay) way to do it would be REBOL > accelerator plugins - which feature optimization of certain segments of
> REBOL interpreter... Seamlessly replacing how certain code is interpreted > and executed to accelerate certain types of math operations, or
whatever... Another ones from OSNews: -------- I've read about rebol when it first came out and I always get the same impression. So please straighten me out. What I always come out feeling is that Rebol is powerful because its libraries are powerful. For example, Rebol claims to make writing an email client easy. But that is just because it has email address as a datatype and SMTP built-in. You can do the same with the appropriate libraries in any language. Another example is the parsing stuff: while it provides the possible to parse input, I've never seen an example where the syntax was really augmented vs. the basic Rebol syntax. They always end-up with some keywords, some modifiers introduced by a slash and block ([]). Would it be really possible to create an entirely different syntax as a dialect? Could I write for example a PostScript dialect that would read pure PostScript, except for an enclosing context? What about performance and control? Could I write an image processing library that would process CMYK images (instead of RGB)?In short, all I've read about only reflects that the Rebol syntax is simple and the bundled libraries are internet-oriented. To me Rebol code looks like a slightly more evolved LISP: replace ( with [, ' with ! and , with / ;-) Eugenia (IP: wrote on 2001-10-23 17:48:31 Re: Anonymous The way I understand it, Rebol is an internet language. If you want to write a Photoshop or Office alternative you are much better off with Python than with Rebol (I am mentioning Python and not something like C or Java, because it is similar to what rebol can do for the Net for Python to do as a standard and simple *interpreted* language for the desktop). -------- Rebol is great architecture in general. It allows easy and relatively fast things for what is "inside". I know that Rebol serves its intended purposes wery well, I just wonder if there is any solution to be able to use Rebol as general programming language, so resulting apps would be fast enough. We have native level performance - ports - the idea is very good imo - you open the purpose port, throw data into it, wait on it, copy result, close it. I understand ports are being some code reactors/engines, and unified port mechanism is abstraction to give us unified aproach. I can imagine RT will add another ports - 3D, etc. If rebol will get big in size, time to finally introduce dynamic components, as not everyone needs some specific functionality. Sometimes APIs to REBOL internals would be handy, as it gives us more possibilities, and it is always good to not be limited. I can imagine View kernel effect pipeline becoming another kind of port - open it, set-it-up, throw data into it, and get your result ..... Just my evening imagination :-)