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

[REBOL] Re: outro

From: rgaither:triad:rr at: 13-Dec-2002 15:56

Hi Kemp, On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 02:44 PM, Kemp Watson wrote:
> Yep yep =) > > There's another point - RT is greatly complicating things by offering > ever > more 'combinations' of features - this is bound to cause BIG problems > in the > future. Much better for both them and us to offer one comprehensive > package > that can run ANY Rebol code. Is it a language? A set of libraries? A > GUI > toolset? An O/S abstraction layer? A shell? I dunno. The idea of > picking
This part I agree with in part, having too many options can be a drawback, though I wouldn't put it in the BIG category.
> your own functionality may seem appealing on a very cursory basis, but > it > just doesn't scale up to anything serious.
This part I don't agree with. These new versions are available to give us the developer control over what we build into the finished application, as well as show us what RT has done to implement certain features. This is a very good thing for serious application development. Look at them as optimization features for building the product.
> I don't want to be constantly telling my clients "no, no, you've got > the > wrong Rebol. I know it's current, and it works for your other rebol > app, but
Again, partially an issue but one that isn't really brought on by the different flavors in the SDK. If you get the wrong version from there in your applications it is your fault. :-)
> it won't work for ours'. Java versioning is bad enough... Ah, the > beauty of > a true compiler.
Yeah, while not nearly as bad as Java REBOL does need to get settled on the versioning front some itself. Beta versions need to be short term instances, not what we've been working with lately. My .02, Rod. Rod Gaither [rgaither--triad--rr--com] Oak Ridge, NC USA