[REBOL] Re: Slashdot REBOL mention
From: rotenca:telvia:it at: 2-Nov-2001 13:59
Hi, Ladislav
> [Romano wrote:]
> > Everything is a dialect in Rebol.
>
> This isn't a dialect definition I would suggest to use, according to that
> all languages would be dialecting, because you can change the variables in
> any language.
What i want to say is that, in Rebol, the "ufficial" language is very poor. It
is almost all made by variables (there are not instruction (vs functions),
also the operators are functions, syntax and punctuaction marks are very
limited. In many others languages there is a big fixed part and an unlimited
variable part, in Rebol the fixed part is very small and this leaves a great
freedom in programming.
> The existence of dialects doesn't distinguish (C and Rebol e.g.) languages.
I agree.
> The real
> difference is, that we can define our own Rebol dialects (using PARSE e.g.).
> PARSE can be used to totally change the way how the block is being
> interpreted.
I think that this feature is also in other interpreted languages. Rexx, for
example, has an instruction "parse" and an istruction "interpret", so it can
make the same things than Parse/Do. In C, you can always create your parser
and interpret-compile-link the result as C language at run time (it is not so
easy and direct...).
> Rebol can easily handle blocks, which can be basically considered sentences
> of the language. The interesting consequence of that is, that as opposed to
> C, Rebol will never have any macro language, because Rebol is a macro
> language for itself. (Don't you like that?)
Yes, also if, to me, is not clear the true difference between a macro and a
non-macro language.
> A "buzzword" that communicates
> this meaning is, that REBOL is a language with meta-circular semantics.
I'm not sure. I think that semantic refers to the meaning of words, not to
syntax rules. When I listen the word "semantic",
I think to Bind and Context and to the fact che no word in Rebol has a meaning
outside a given context (no keyword).
> Hope the text is a little bit more consistent now.
My error, not your, if i did not understand well your message.
> Regards
> Ladislav
---
Ciao
Romano
