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

[REBOL] Re: Is Rebol code smaler?

From: tim:johnsons-web at: 17-Nov-2002 13:32

* Rebolinth <[Rebolinth--nodep--dds--nl]> [021117 13:11]:
> Hiya All, > > Im wondering, when i roam through the codes from ie. the "Library" > at reboltech or looking into example of rebol It amazes me again > and again that I still see traces of "C". And im pointing out here > the fact of "effective programming. > > I read once in the list (or a book) that someone said "First think befor you > program when using rebol" and thats a fact. Still i see sometimes source > codes popping by that are the size of an equal C program, I cant emagine > that should be the cause ;-) > > Even when i look at examples from the RT themself i see purly C routines > copied to Rebol (Take i.e. list-dir) Its an awful code, not even rebol-like!
Hmmm! Taking list-dir as an example: (I've programmed in "C" for 12 years) It would take some overhead (including memory allocation) just to get a list of files in a directory into a a char** array. Although traversing the array could be just done using prefixed ++. One could write a "C" that would look like rebol and be as compact (but Hey isn't the rebol interpret written in Ansi C?), but a lot of overhead would be applied to libraries somewhere. But come to think of it, what's with s: make string! 0 ; insted of s: copy "" ;?????
> So why is it? how come so? Rebol is language to me that should make code > smaler!!! even 2x 3x smaler that original other languaes, but its not always!!
I've moved anything to I do that is not high-performance targeted to rebol from "C". Believe me, I've saved a lot of code, not to mention ever larger amounts of time in code maintenance and upload time and resources.
> I just build some routines in "TCL" that code is smaller then the Rebol-version > (i've not finisched yet, still!!! im thinking twise befor coding a routine in > Rebol, because I know it can be done effective and compact!!)
Also, in "C", you cannot "roll your own control structures", although the preprocessor can enable you to sort of pretend to it a bit. But, I believe that you can do so also in TCL, because control structures and just functions just as is so in REBOL.
> The days of one-lines is long gone :-) But i take it with me when im > programming! Make it small fast and compact (assembly freakoff:-)
There should be a rebol compiler or a system to translate rebol code into an Ansi C "dialect", which could then be compiled.
> Anyway.. The question remains: Why isnt rebol code smaler? > > Anyone?
Grab the fire extinguisher! Seriously, good to hear your input! :-) -tim- -- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]>