[REBOL] Re: starting to be really late!?
From: krobillard:cox at: 10-Jan-2004 13:20
Hey Ed, that's an excellent summary of how Rebol differs from other mainstream
languages.
Everything else in this post I have said before, but I like to restate my
thoughts whenever this topic pops up, as Robert notes that it does, every few
months or so.
I believe the artificial limits placed on Rebol by RT is the problem and agree
that the strategy is wrong. I don't want another platform and Rebol is
doomed to failure if it insists on trying to compete with all the existing
ones. I want Rebol as a tool to bind my existing platforms and applications
together.
My killer-app for Rebol is to be a next generaton ARexx. This is what I
expected Rebol to be from day one and is what I think of when I hear the
words 'messaging language'. I want a Rebol interpreter library which can be
embedded in applications and allow the application to implement datatypes &
natives. I don't see how this is possible (and be widely adopted) without
Rebol being open source to some degree. As I have pointed out before,
Trolltech has a successful business model where their main product is open
source.
In a sense, RT does not eat its own dog chow. The interface users are given
to extend Rebol is the commercial External Library Access. By the way, the
platform vs. tool stance RT takes is apparent when they say this interface is
available to interface with 'legacy' systems. I'm sorry, but things like the
C language and OpenGL are not 'legacy'. RT, however, does not extend Rebol
this way. They create separate products with an embedded core (View, IOS,
etc) and extend the language with datatypes and natives.
I have given up hope of ever being able to use Rebol this way and was very
disappointed to hear Carl talk about being satisfied with Rebol as an
application like HyperCard. Bleh. So I am consigned to use Rebol for
various utilities where I can - things like A J Martin's C# code generator.
I hope I'm not repeating myself too often here on the list.
-Karl
