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

[REBOL] Re: REBOL 3.0 mentioned on the blog!

From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 14-Mar-2006 0:49

Carl Read wrote:
>On Sunday, 12-March-2006 at 13:52:45 Nick Antonaccio wrote, > >>Beyond that, I hope RT really works at marketing. A bigger community means a >>more productive and capable language via more third party tools. That's >>where >>Rebol's really lacking. No one uses it. Carl and many of the Rebol gurus >>are >>design geniuses - my sense is that they should devote more of their energy >>and >>vision to promoting the superior design of Rebol, and making it commercially >>acceptable to use it! Success in that area would be success for everyone >>involved :) >> >> > >I agree. A re-write of REBOL to add new features would be nice if it's a success, but I see no reason to suspect it will be, given the amount of unfinished REBOL stuff that's about. The Mac View version is still "pending" on their website, though in alpha or beta if you look deeply. And REBOL Services? It's still in alpha or beta too I believe, as is Rebcode. And the REBOL plugin is still only on IE. > >I'm worried that while they're trying to make REBOL perfect, the world's leaving them far behind. > >I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but then I read this from Dave Winer... > > >
And I don't agree at all guys. First - if you would still insist on original rebol, you would be 10 times or more slower, had some features which showed as not so important later, respectively speed gains from different implementation was right. Carl did reimplementation in few months and we got 2.0 branch. Incompatibilities? So what? It is still rebol and imo it is normal. Look at Perl 5 to 6 and I don't expect Rebol to be so much incompatible ... However - in my opinion there was chosen wrong path for rebol from the very beginning - it should be async, tasking, multimedia ready from the very beginning. You know - we've got async for a while, but it showed not being so much stable. And Carl clearly stated that some things are not possible without slightly different implementation. I don't understand you at all - you can get much better lower level implementation and you are scared? those things don't necessarily mean your rebol code will break every 2 lines ;-) It is imo like inserting rebol language into more powerful underlying framework. My vote for Rebol 3.0 - definitely - no more compromises ... -pekr-