rebol/base

[1/6] from: petr::krenzelok::trz::cz at: 30-Sep-2002 16:05

[mh983--attbi--com] wrote:

>Does anyone else think the naming of base and core are reversed? Seems >that core would be the smallest, 'core' piece of rebol, and base would

<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>

>Just please not view++ :-) >mike

I don't want to participate in name election, as it is imo pretty irrelevant right now. I think that the most important factor is to get things done in the right way :-) Anyway - why to confuse outside world with other names? If we want to introduce all - core, view, command, link in their base versions, just let's combine refinements ;-) rebol/core/light rebol/view/light rebol/command/light or rebol/core/base rebol/view/base rebol/command/base KISS :-) -pekr-

[2/6] from: mh983:attbi at: 30-Sep-2002 13:41

Does anyone else think the naming of base and core are reversed? Seems that core would be the smallest, 'core' piece of rebol, and base would add features on top of the core. I don't know what that means for the /view question. Maybe /viewcore and /view? or /view and /view+ Just please not view++ :-) mike

[3/6] from: gscottjones:mchsi at: 30-Sep-2002 9:36

Hi, Mike, From: Mike

> Does anyone else think the naming of base and core > are reversed? Seems that core would be the smallest, > 'core' piece of rebol, and base would add features on > top of the core.

A similar thought occurred to me in regard to /View. In retrospect, REBOL/View could have been the "core" of the gui features, and REBOL/VID (or REBOL/View/VID) the loaded version. Product confusion would (and should) exclude this option at this point. Besides, /VID would not then adequately convey the other bundled features (schemes, etc). Given that it is unlikely that RT would be bold and brazen enough to _rename_ current products, then I personally would gravitate more toward: REBOL/Face (originally proposed by Chris RG. IIRC) or incorporating a variation on Laurence G's suggestion (REBOL/Baseview): REBOL/Base/Face Did anyone mention the following? (other possibilities) REBOL/GUI or REBOL/GDI or, by extension of the path/refinement concept: REBOL/Base/GUI REBOL/Base/GDI These later two suffer from a conceptual incongruity by suggesting that /GUI and /GDI are already incorporated within REBOL/Base. Maybe those two should be nixed on talking it out. :-)

> I don't know what that means for > the /view question. Maybe /viewcore and /view? > or /view and /view+ > Just please not view++ :-)

Or even just REBOL/Viewbase, incorporating Laurence's and Mike's ideas. In a tribute to the dark side, will we eventually see REBOL/ECMA? Answer: REBOL/ECMA.NOT :-) --Scott Jones

[4/6] from: anton:lexicon at: 1-Oct-2002 0:59

Everyone thinks their particular scheme is the simplest. Rebol Technologies are the ones actually doing the work. I also think choosing appropriate names is one of the most important things. A strong vision for something comes when it is named well, and in advance. Anton.

[5/6] from: rebolek:seznam:cz at: 30-Sep-2002 17:04

Well REBOL/Base is great but I'm more interested in ADDING than REMOVING functionality from REBOL ;) Enough of sarcasm for today ;), bye, bolek

[6/6] from: kemp:extelligence at: 30-Sep-2002 11:16

> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of

<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>

> that core would be the smallest, 'core' piece of rebol, and base would > add features on top of the core.

Yes indeed.

Notes

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