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

Some thoughts around Rebol

 [1/14] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 13-Apr-2001 14:25


Hi Robert!
>Hi there, while reading through most of the postings and observing RT >progress to a complete product strategie I'm always thinking about some >stuff, which is needed to make Rebol a "professional" tool (that a big >company is going to use it):
This is going to be a hard thing for REBOL. 1. Big companies buy "applications" not technology platforms. 2. But, they buy those "applications" only for technology platforms they have heard of - unless no other solution exists. :-( 3. There has been some serious consolidation in the "application" product space that leaves big companies only buying from other big companies. It is getting harder, and harder for a vertical or niche application to make it big in those companies. 4. Even in the application "Hosting" space it is a hard sell without dropping the name of the technology under it - Oracle, Java, ...
>1. Storage Formats >I would like to see RT to adapt XML as the generic storage format for all >kind of data. Rod Gaither just answered to Carl why he is going to use XML. >I fully agree with Rod. To use Rebol in a corporate environment it is >mandatory to support "standards" and using XML seems to be a good way.
Thanks for the prop. :-) The XML support should be visible, but not a replacement. It is too big to do all the way and too much of a distraction to the REBOL core goals to make a central aspect. It does need to be WAY better than it is with the current product though which barely counts as an after thought. :-)
>2. Object serialization >I really like the functionality to store Rebol objects to disk and read them
<<quoted lines omitted: 10>>
>load the stuff as needed. At the moment we have in memory-databases, that's >OK for some hundred objects but not for a enterprise application.
This is such a tough issue. I too have wished for everything I have in my rdbms but with XML flexibility. Schema defined on the fly, with binary storage and retrieval speed, built in support for all the ways of traversing and selecting based on XLink/XPointer/XPath - all in a small, simple to use for big or tiny projects... :-) Way too many smileys to be a reality discussion! Again, this is a product waiting to happen, but it is not REBOL.
>3. Office Access Layer
I won't touch this one. I'm trying very hard to escape the clutches of this beast! I'm down to using less than 10% of any of the office product features. It is time for simple, functional, open replacement options!
>That's it for now. Feel free to add your thoughts, flame mine ;-)) ...
No flames here, good thoughts in general. Rod. Rod Gaither Oak Ridge, NC - USA [rgaither--triad--rr--com]

 [2/14] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 13-Apr-2001 14:53


Rod Gaither wrote:
> This is going to be a hard thing for REBOL. > > 1. Big companies buy "applications" not technology platforms. >
I basically agree. In terms of software, I would say they buy systems or components in order to create systems or components. The important factor is why they buy them. I believe the answer is that they percieve it will solve a business problem. They will buy anything if they percieves it solves a business problem. From a marketing perspective, a technology platform is generally used as a concept that helps sell the systems or components. Business problem: The time it takes to write software systems. Solution: Use a more productive programming language, such as REBOL.
> 2. But, they buy those "applications" only for technology platforms > they have heard of - unless no other solution exists. :-( >
True, they usually dont go looking unless they have identified a business problem they cannot fix. In this case you must bring the business problem to thier attention. Technology platforms, as any concept, can work as a barrier. But it seems any barrier can be broken. For instance Java has a hold on the market partly because it is cross-platform. I think the the term "Write once, run anywhere" comes to mind. Is this true? Do you really write it just once, and it just up and runs anywhere. Thats not what I heard. If it does'nt do that, then its not really cross platform, is it? Does Java save you much time? REBOL on a crutch could run circles around Java. Twice as productive, three times, four times, or more, Im not sure. I wonder how that type of increase in efficency would translate to dollars? Java, and many others, succeed on some flimsy concepts. REBOL can easily overtake them. --Ryan

 [3/14] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 13-Apr-2001 15:47


Hi there, while reading through most of the postings and observing RT progress to a complete product strategie I'm always thinking about some stuff, which is needed to make Rebol a "professional" tool (that a big company is going to use it): 1. Storage Formats I would like to see RT to adapt XML as the generic storage format for all kind of data. Rod Gaither just answered to Carl why he is going to use XML. I fully agree with Rod. To use Rebol in a corporate environment it is mandatory to support "standards" and using XML seems to be a good way. 2. Object serialization I really like the functionality to store Rebol objects to disk and read them back in again. With /Command we have access to normal database systems. What I think would be a killer-functionality for Rebol is the following: Being able to store objects as XML (yes, we can do it but native support would be nice) within an object-oriented XML aware database, which supports the following features: - handles huge number of objects (several hundred thousands) - fast searching (quering) - handling of object-types as properties - keeping Rebols run-time memory footprint low Imagine that you can handle a lot of objects in a way that Rebol will only load the stuff as needed. At the moment we have in memory-databases, that's OK for some hundred objects but not for a enterprise application. 3. Office Access Layer This is something we can do ourselve. How about a DLL, which can be used inside Rebol, which provides a nice and lean interface to control all MS Office applications. Than we should create a Rebol dialect for easy using. Why we need this? Well, it doesn't make sense to reprogramm Excel and friends (IMO) as Rebol scripts. It's better to use them and control/feed/... all these applications with a Rebol script. Example: We could use the presentation dialect to create a presenetation and than just write... convert to powerpoint This would result in a PowerPoint file containing the complete presentation. That's it for now. Feel free to add your thoughts, flame mine ;-)) ... Robert

 [4/14] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 15-Apr-2001 11:47


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: Some thoughts around Rebol > 1. Big companies buy "applications" not technology platforms.
Hi Rod, well I would say they buy "solutions". Those solutions must integrate into the workflow and how the company is organized. Therefor it's mandatory for a new "concept" to integrate into the company architecture and structure.
> 2. But, they buy those "applications" only for technology platforms > they have heard of - unless no other solution exists. :-(
Not really. Companies are quite pragmatic but you have to show them several things: - No dead end solution: The date must be useable from other applications that's why I think XML as a storage format is a good choice) - Easy to use - Get the job done solution
> 3. There has been some serious consolidation in the "application" > product space that leaves big companies only buying from other > big companies. It is getting harder, and harder for a vertical or niche > application to make it big in those companies.
If you try to replace SAP I agree ;-)) but if you have a (what I call) hub-application, that's one which only controls other applications and implements processes I'm sure you can succeed.
> The XML support should be visible, but not a replacement. It is too big > to do all the way and too much of a distraction to the REBOL core goals > to make a central aspect.
Well, replacement or not, I don't know. I don't see to much a difference in using a RT XML taged document to store information than the way it is now. Yes, you need one more translation layer as you can't send the input stream dircetly to the parser... but IMO this isn't much of a problem.
> It does need to be WAY better than it is with > the current product though which barely counts as an after thought. :-)
Hmm... I'm quite happy with the XML support stuff. It should be possible to create object (hierarchies) directly from XML files and write object (hierarchies) to XML format. Would be nice to have... but it's not to hard to write the routine from scratch.
> Again, this is a product waiting to happen, but it is not REBOL.
Right, that's why the subject reads "around Rebol" and not "about Rebol" ;-)) Anyway, I haven't looked deep enough into this subject but I know that the Software AG has a XML aware database (tamino) which is quite nice. RT would make a good step to aggregate 3rd party vendors around Rebol and install a process that those solutions can be integrated on the native level...
> >3. Office Access Layer > > I won't touch this one. > I'm trying very hard to escape the clutches of this beast! > > I'm down to using less than 10% of any of the office product > features. It is time for simple, functional, open replacement > options!
Agreed, but Office is used in the fields, so there is no discussion about there are other solutions available Office is just there and it's used, no one cares about your application if you can't integrate it. On the other hand, I wouldn't start writing it all from scratch again, just use it and that's it... and of course than you are compatible ;-)) Robert

 [5/14] from: carl:rebol at: 15-Apr-2001 10:45


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
> This is going to be a hard thing for REBOL. > 1. Big companies buy "applications" not technology platforms.
That's ok. Big companies don't start revolutions like the Web, email, net news, the Internet, personal computing, new countries, etc. Big companies lag, which is good, because it gives revolutionaries ground to work. :-)
> 2. But, they buy those "applications" only for technology platforms > they have heard of - unless no other solution exists. :-(
Yes, and in 1992, how many heard of the Web? By 1995, how many were on the web? Things change... and even big companies change over time. If not, they die (or at least lose significant market share.) REBOL accomplishes something that the Web also offered. Smaller is better. There were many solutions like the Web prior to it, but the web passed them all. If, for instance, I wrote the SalesForce.com ASP in REBOL, it would work much better than the current web based model. I could write it in a few weeks - one person. If I were in that business, I would have a significant competitive advantage over SalesForce.com.
> 3. There has been some serious consolidation in the "application" > product space that leaves big companies only buying from other > big companies. It is getting harder, and harder for a vertical or niche > application to make it big in those companies.
Again, that's ok. It's human nature. Big companies don't start new directions. They are not our target customers - early adopters are.
> 4. Even in the application "Hosting" space it is a hard sell without > dropping the name of the technology under it - Oracle, Java, ...
Same here.
> >1. Storage Formats > >I would like to see RT to adapt XML as the generic storage format for all > >kind of data. Rod Gaither just answered to Carl why he is going > to use XML. > >I fully agree with Rod. To use Rebol in a corporate environment it is > >mandatory to support "standards" and using XML seems to be a good way.
You are free to use it, but not all of us will, because not all of us have the time or money to deal with it. REBOL data formats are much more lean and easier to handle. They can be converted to XML and back. XML is good. REBOL is good. Don't get me wrong.
> Thanks for the prop. :-) > > The XML support should be visible, but not a replacement. It is too big > to do all the way and too much of a distraction to the REBOL core goals > to make a central aspect. It does need to be WAY better than it is with > the current product though which barely counts as an after thought. :-)
Ah, yes... REBOL/Command/XML.... that's the way. <clipped rest> -Carl REBOL Tech.

 [6/14] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 16-Apr-2001 15:36


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> Big companies lag, which is good, because it gives revolutionaries > ground to work. :-)
Hi, agreed. But if you get a global player as friend supporting your idea while letting you make your way, you have won the market! The danger for revolutions is... that after some time no one remembers them... and I really don't want to see this happening to Rebol ;-)).
> Yes, and in 1992, how many heard of the Web? By 1995, how many > were on the web? Things change... and even big companies change > over time. If not, they die (or at least lose significant market > share.)
Yep, and the big ones are gaining speed to make changes. Not as fast as a .com startup but the people know about it... and they work on it.
> Again, that's ok. It's human nature. Big companies don't start new > directions. They are not our target customers - early adopters are.
:-)) Right strategy. How about combining an early adopter with a big company project access? It will demonstrate that Rebol is a good way to go... that's what my thought were about. Real-life-big-business-references might be the best RT can get at this time.
> You are free to use it, but not all of us will, because not all of us > have the time or money to deal with it. REBOL data formats are much > more lean and easier to handle. They can be converted to XML and > back. XML is good. REBOL is good. Don't get me wrong.
I don't and it's OK ...
> Ah, yes... REBOL/Command/XML.... that's the way.
... and this really sounds promising. I'm sure it will solve those problems in a professional way. That's all I need ;-)) Robert

 [7/14] from: carl:rebol at: 16-Apr-2001 7:19


Hi, so we agree... also... I've been looking at our download logs recently... This is interesting. Almost every large company in the world uses REBOL, or at least, they are curious about it. That list includes companies like ATT, IBM, Sony, Philips, and many more. Is it the "company" or a "REBOL individual" within the company. That is impossible to tell and probably the latter. But, as the president of Chrysler used to say, you sell cars one car at a time. -Carl

 [8/14] from: chris:ross-gill at: 16-Apr-2001 11:04


Hi Carl,
> Hi, so we agree... also... > I've been looking at our download logs recently... This is
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> is impossible to tell and probably the latter. But, as the president > of Chrysler used to say, you sell cars one car at a time.
Seems that ITV (UK TV station) use it for their on-line F1 coverage if the bottom line of their HTML is anything to go by... (http://www.itv-f1.com/) - Chris

 [9/14] from: carl:rebol at: 16-Apr-2001 8:33


Ah... where? Did not see it on the page. -Carl

 [10/14] from: gjones05:mail:orion at: 16-Apr-2001 10:51


From: "Carl Sassenrath" <[carl--rebol--com]>
> Ah... where? Did not see it on the page. -Carl
Check the HTML source, last line! --Scott Jones

 [11/14] from: chris:ross-gill at: 16-Apr-2001 12:05


Hi Carl,
> Ah... where? Did not see it on the page. -Carl
Sorry, not actually visible. It's at the bottom line of the HTML source. <!-- Last REBOL Generation at: 16-Apr-2001/15:42:56 - [SubCached] //--> 'as-is works just fine :o) - Chris

 [12/14] from: allenk:powerup:au at: 18-Apr-2001 7:38


----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sassenrath" <[carl--rebol--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:19 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Some thoughts around Rebol
> Hi, so we agree... also... > I've been looking at our download logs recently... This is interesting.
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> of Chrysler used to say, you sell cars one car at a time. > -Carl
Carl: MS used to hit my rebsite daily about 6-8 months ago. For All: When we make broad statements that companies want x,y & z we should note that the companies requirements and selection criteria changes depending on their age and status. What's true for one market segment is not always true for another.. This article helps explain the differences in what companies at various levels are after. http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/03/plat/ Allen K

 [13/14] from: cyphre:volny:cz at: 17-Apr-2001 11:17


Hello Carl, I have to point out (from my secret source) that people at M$ surely don't know that some of their products are built using Rebol/Core scripts. :-)) Cyphre

 [14/14] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 17-Apr-2001 16:40


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> is impossible to tell and probably the latter. But, as the president > of Chrysler used to say, you sell cars one car at a time.
Hi, yes and that's the "beachhead" to start from. If Rebol is known internally by some people it makes the entry for externals with professional applications a lot easier. But to gain official acceptance IMO some of the points I mentioned could be the turbo-charger to make this process happen. Robert

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted