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

[REBOL] Galt and Andrew's discussion of Religion and Rebol

From: al::bri::xtra::co::nz at: 29-Aug-2000 16:21

Galt wrote:
> Andrew, you must be religious.
One could always check out my site... :-)
> You believe in the Perfect Rebol!
Why not? It's a good enough way for me. I'd like to see a better way, and would enthusiastically accept it.
> I don't care what feature it is or whether it's working broken or just
weird, you have to understand it and imagining the perfect rebol won't do me a bit of good. One must be careful in one's knowing of Rebol to know the intent of Rebol and not to know the faults of Rebol, as they are merely imperfections. :-)
> Also, I find the claim that Rebol is significantly like a human language
to be a bunch of marketing bull. It is like it, not totally though. Words in Rebol can have different meanings, which is one characteristic of human languages.
> It is true that dialects may prove to be powerful and helpful, but they
still don't make much difference regarding a natural human language. Rebol is not and never will be like a human language. I think I agree with most of that.
> I don't mind that actually, and I am not surprised. Unless RT plans to
invent AI that really works, there is no way any computer could understand a natural human language. One should always have hope that computers will succeed, when they are advanced enough.
> Also, frankly, for the kind of work most of us do, we prefer the precision
of our computers following a correct recipe to the powers and foibles of a human language. I agree.
> People invent special languages all the time for a certain domain where
they need precision. Definitely. Much like dialects in Rebol.
> Some mathematical languages are great for math but nobody would call them
natural languages... That's right.
> Anyway, that gets tiresome. Believe what you will about Reb and nat lang.
OK. I think the analogy fits.
> If you think Rebol is especially confusing to C programmers, that's too
bad. I think it's pretty much confusing to everybody, but a little lisp or logo or scheme may be more help than harm. Knowledge of LISP could be handy to learn Rebol. I can't say, I've only come across LISP and Scheme recently.
> Actually, since the implementers of Rebol are swimming mentally in C code
all day long, it may sometimes affect their thinking and first impulses, but how could that be helped? I believe design changes are passed through Carl first, and that those are written in the point of view of Rebol code. After all, a lot of Rebol is written in Rebol.
> Well, keep the faith!!!
OK. Andrew Martin Zen Rebolutionary... ICQ: 26227169