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

Slashdot REBOL mention

 [1/34] from: rgaither::triad::rr::com at: 29-Oct-2001 9:39


Looks like the OS News bit is getting around! http://slashdot.org/developers/01/10/28/2122229.shtml FYI, Rod. Rod Gaither Oak Ridge, NC - USA [rgaither--triad--rr--com]

 [2/34] from: mat:b:codeplay at: 29-Oct-2001 15:15


Hello Rod, RG> Looks like the OS News bit is getting around! RG> http://slashdot.org/developers/01/10/28/2122229.shtml All amazingly negative stuff from the usual slashdot crowd, no big surprises there. I must say I can't be bothered to justify my choice of scripting language to them and it doesn't look like anyone else is either. Don't fear for Rebol though, I got my own company slashdotted to much the same sort of response. Got loads of web traffic out of it but almost nothing in the way of anything useful in terms of users. I had to hearten myself in the office with; <LinuxGod> I see your Rebol thinggy is on Slashdot. <Me> Yes and I see the Linux hounds have been unleashed. <LinuxGod> Well that 7K messenger client is nothing new, it just has the libraries built in. <Me> Indeed, but at least it does. It's also a cool language which I find amazingly fast to use. <LinuxGod> The license sucks though. You have to pay to release Rebol apps? <Me> Yeah, I dunno what's going on with that. I don't care really. <LinuxGod> So there's no point in it, you should just use Perl. <Me> Get real, Rebol is a cool language - Perl is a study in how to make a non-readable bit of code. Rebol just works. <LinuxGod> Well everyone knows Perl. You could do a Perl instant messenger in no time. <Me> Well, if we both sit down and code one from scratch - I'll lay a month's salary on the fact I will be finish first with Rebol. <LinuxGod> Ahh well... I'm not that good at Perl.... Regards, Mat Bettinson Codeplay Tel: +44 (0)20 7482 3382 140-142 Kentish Town Rd, London, NW1 9QB http://www.codeplay.com

 [3/34] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 29-Oct-2001 11:09


Hi Mat,
>RG> Looks like the OS News bit is getting around! > >RG> http://slashdot.org/developers/01/10/28/2122229.shtml > >All amazingly negative stuff from the usual slashdot crowd, no big >surprises there. I must say I can't be bothered to justify my choice >of scripting language to them and it doesn't look like anyone else is >either.
Yeah, read some of those myself. Sure are a lot of programmers willing to make judgements on something they know nothing about. :-(
>I had to hearten myself in the office with;
I did get a note from my boss pointing it out for me. At least he was aware enough to pass it along. :-) [snip] Nice dialog! :-) Rod. Rod Gaither Oak Ridge, NC - USA [rgaither--triad--rr--com]

 [4/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 29-Oct-2001 18:22


Hi Rod, Mat, Rebols,
> Sure are a lot of programmers willing to make judgements on > something they know nothing about. :-(
I read Larry Wall's comments on Rebol again and the most funny stuff was his claim, that Perl did use dialecting :-)

 [5/34] from: ammonjohnson:ya:hoo at: 29-Oct-2001 12:57


<Disclaimer: I am not a big Perl fan, just someone with a little experience.> From what I have seen of Perl, Perl DOES use dialecting, it just hasn't been touted like dialecting in REBOL has. Perl is NOT READABLE, that seems to be its biggest characteristic. Why would you do a dialect? What is the point? A dialect is really just a library, with a little different format for accessing the functions. The reason for changing the way you access them is to make it REABABLE, that would go directly against all perl rules. ;-) If someone wanted to they could create dialects, in perl, that would allow you to write programs, in Perl, in a readable fashion. ;-0 Enjoy, my 2! Ammon PS Just enjoy no pun intended.

 [6/34] from: cyphre:seznam:cz at: 29-Oct-2001 20:35


Don't worry Rebolers ;). The responses from "Slashdot crowd" are mostly like I expected. One of czech sayings comes to my mind: "You'll never teach old dog to behave better than he is used to behave."(sorry for my confusing direct translation :) ) regards, Cyphre

 [7/34] from: carl:cybercraft at: 30-Oct-2001 9:04


On 30-Oct-01, Cyphre wrote:
> Don't worry Rebolers ;). The responses from "Slashdot crowd" are > mostly like I expected. > One of czech sayings comes to my mind: "You'll never teach old dog > to behave better than he is used to behave."(sorry for my confusing > direct translation :) )
There's an English version Cyphre: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." -- Carl Read

 [8/34] from: tim:johnsons-web at: 29-Oct-2001 10:09


I read Carl's interview there. He shows (as always) a wonderful vision. If he/RT follows up on that vision and make it real, he will make history. And I am not one for hyperbole.... On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:57:05PM -0700, Ammon Johnson wrote:
> <Disclaimer: I am not a big Perl fan, just someone with a little > experience.>
<<quoted lines omitted: 32>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
-- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> http://www.johnsons-web.com

 [9/34] from: chris:starforge at: 29-Oct-2001 20:53


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 #Monday 29 October 2001 14:57# Message from Ammon Johnson:
> <Disclaimer: I am not a big Perl fan, just someone with a little > experience.> > > From what I have seen of Perl, Perl DOES use dialecting, it just
hasn't
> been touted like dialecting in REBOL has. Perl is NOT READABLE, that
seems
> to be its biggest characteristic.
I have been forced to learn Perl, and while I agree it is not the most likable language on the planet but there are a few points I think should be considered: - - A script is as readable as the author makes it. I can write obfusticated REBOL as easily as I can Perl. I can write very readable, sensible code in either language as well. - - I use REBOL and Perl for two things: CGI scripting and database work. As far as CGI is concerned they are not particularly different - once you get the hang of the syntax it is almost possible to copy a piece of REBOL code, paste it and then add ing a few symbols (function paramters aside, those are stupid in Perl..) As for the database work.. as I have explained elsewhere, I needed Oracle access but bying /command was not an option, neither was using mySQL instead. Perl and DBI did the job as easily. You see, if you're going to get all fancy with the language then I agree - REBOL would be far better than Perl. But I'd use C/C++ or even Java if I wanted to do anything particularly complicated because I believe that each language has its place. Where I think REBOL is suitable, I use REBOL. Where I think Perl would do the job as well or better, I use Perl. REBOL is not the be all and end all of languages; it has good and bad points the same as any other. If you want to do dialects, use REBOL. If you want cheap database and shell access, use Perl. If you want speed use C. If you want platform independant graphical programs, use Java. Many people here will disagree with this view and think that REBOL can be used for all of them. If everyone agreed on everything life would be boring. Chris - -- New sig in the works Explorer2260 Designer and Coder http://www.starforge.co.uk - -- E = MC ** 2 +- 3db -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE73ggEtwxr0HXns0wRAsX2AJ9Z3CzWlpX7Ri7DvDq8QgiNNHU9bACfY6Ur ti37UFPcdz33XfM2xneINDs=szpT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 [10/34] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 29-Oct-2001 13:09


As far as slashdot articles go, I would say it did really well. Rod Gaither wrote:
> Looks like the OS News bit is getting around! > http://slashdot.org/developers/01/10/28/2122229.shtml
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
-- Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst www.iesco-dms.com 707-468-5400

 [11/34] from: dness:home at: 29-Oct-2001 16:43


Cyphre wrote:
> Don't worry Rebolers ;). The responses from "Slashdot crowd" are mostly like > I expected.
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> regards, > Cyphre
I like the Czech saying better than our traditional colloquial `You can't teach an old dog new tricks'. I might try an English rendering of the Czech with something like `Old dogs can't learn new manners'

 [12/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 29-Oct-2001 23:56


Hi Ammon,
> From what I have seen of Perl, Perl DOES use dialecting, it just
hasn't
> been touted like dialecting in REBOL has. Perl is NOT READABLE, that
seems
> to be its biggest characteristic. > > Why would you do a dialect? What is the point? A dialect is really > just a library, with a little different format for accessing the
functions.
> The reason for changing the way you access them is to make it REABABLE,
that
> would go directly against all perl rules. ;-) If someone wanted to they > could create dialects, in perl, that would allow you to write programs, in > Perl, in a readable fashion. ;-0 > > Enjoy, my 2! > Ammon > > PS Just enjoy no pun intended.
Could you be more elaborate on Perl dialecting (I am not a Perl expert)? As an example of a dialect, let's take my PIF function from http://www.rebol.cz/cffr.html Is there a possibility to do that in Perl? Regards Ladislav

 [13/34] from: ammonjohnson:y:ahoo at: 29-Oct-2001 17:39


Hi, Yes, oh yes! You see Perl IS A DIALECT (of C). ;-) (I just noticed two reasons for dialecting, the other being to MINIMIZE code) If you do enough with Perl you will find that you soon speak (code) in a dialect no one else can speak (code) thereby it has gained its fame as UNREADABLE code. ;-) The difference is that REBOL is touted for READABLE code, so its developers (the purists) emphasize READABLE code. Whereas Perl is touted for "quick code" something that never was nor ever will be meant to use again, but to throw away, & rewright when you move to another company, or when you change developers. So its developers tout its quickness to code (or in other words less typing). Enjoy!! Ammon

 [14/34] from: ammonjohnson:yah:oo at: 29-Oct-2001 18:05


& I also noticed that your first version of SIF works great it is the testing func that had trouble.
>> f: func [
[ arg [ ][ [ return a arg ['negative] ['zero] ['possitive] [ ]
>> f -7
== negative
>> f 0
== zero
>> f 9
== possitive See? Enjoy!! Ammon

 [15/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 30-Oct-2001 2:58


Hi Ammon, although unbelievable, the next version of SIF really works better.

 [16/34] from: ammonjohnson:ya:hoo at: 29-Oct-2001 20:27


----- Original Message ----- From: "Ladislav Mecir" <[lmecir--mbox--vol--cz]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 6:58 PM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Slashdot REBOL mention
> Hi Ammon, > > although unbelievable, the next version of SIF really works better.
Not unbelievable, True! I just wanted you to see the way REBOL thinks. ;-) My point was that testing could be changed to: testing: func [ arg ][ return sif arg ['negative] ['zero] ['positive] ] which would minimize the code, & use a function to return a value to a function, as REBOL is so good at doing. ;-) Just a little more elegant. Enjoy!! Ammon

 [17/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 30-Oct-2001 4:24


> > Hi Ammon, > > > > although unbelievable, the next version of SIF really works better. > > Not unbelievable, True! I just wanted you to see the way REBOL thinks.
;-)
> My point was that testing could be changed to: > testing: func [
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> which would minimize the code, & use a function to return a value to a > function, as REBOL is so good at doing. ;-) Just a little more elegant.
It surely is more elegant. The only disadvantage is, that it won't reveal the bug I am mentioning.

 [18/34] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 30-Oct-2001 8:12


Hi, Ladislav, Ladislav Mecir wrote:
> I read Larry Wall's comments on Rebol again and the most funny stuff > was his claim, that Perl did use dialecting :-) >
I can't find that claim anywhere in Larry's remarks. Could you point me to it? The only comments by Larry that I could find were a link someone else posted to a three-year-old email reposted to Google... -jn- -- ; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]} REBOL [] # despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"] ; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"} print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;

 [19/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 30-Oct-2001 16:31


Hi Joel,
> > I read Larry Wall's comments on Rebol again and the most funny stuff > > was his claim, that Perl did use dialecting :-)
<<quoted lines omitted: 10>>
> ; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"} > print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;
Larry wrote (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=larry+wall+rebol&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&ic =1&selm=36406F9F.40E9CB59%40ndirect.co.uk_NOSPAM): I don't think REBOL is any more English-like than any other dialecting language such as, say, Tcl. (Or Perl, for that matter.) :-))

 [20/34] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 30-Oct-2001 10:56


Hi, Ladislav, I guess we used different operator precedence... ;-) Ladislav Mecir wrote:
> I don't think REBOL is any more English-like than any other dialecting > language such as, say, Tcl. (Or Perl, for that matter.) >
I parsed it as I don't think REBOL is any more English-like than ( (any other dialecting language such as, say, Tcl) or (Perl) ) instead of I don't think REBOL is any more English-like than any other dialecting language, such as, say ( Tcl or Perl ) My perception, as a long-time user of Perl, is that one might describe Tcl as a "dialecting language" (for some senses of the word "dialecting"), but I would never say that about Perl. -jn- -- ; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]} REBOL [] # despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"] ; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"} print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;

 [21/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 30-Oct-2001 18:40


Hi Joel, a question: are you a user of TCL?
> I guess we used different operator precedence... ;-) > Ladislav Mecir wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 17>>
> My perception, as a long-time user of Perl, is that one might describe > Tcl as a "dialecting language" (for some senses of the word
dialecting ),

 [22/34] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 30-Oct-2001 12:52


Hi, Ladislav, Ladislav Mecir wrote:
> Hi Joel, a question: > > are you a user of TCL? >
No. I've looked at it a couple of times, but haven't been able to work up the enthusiasm (or time) to really learn it. My (admittedly cursory, and lightly-held) opinion on its "dialecting" capability arises from these two observations: 1) The syntax of Tcl commands revolves around a simple verb param-a param-b param-c... statement format. 2) There's apparently a well-documented and widely-used set of conventions for writing extensions that present externally- written c functions/libraries as Tcl commands (and, BTW, for embedding Tcl as a command interpreter into c programs). Those led me to the view that it would be easy to write code (either in Tcl or as an extension) that would have the appearance of adding new verbs/commands to the language in a manner that would be indistinguishable from "built-in" features. That's the sense in which I was referring to "dialecting". Of course, that's not unique to Tcl, but it also doesn't quite fit the REBOL concept of a dialect either... -jn- -- ; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]} REBOL [] # despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"] ; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"} print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;

 [23/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 30-Oct-2001 21:30


Hi Joel, thanks for your info. As it looks, TCL really supports some level of dialecting and that is why it surely is closer to natural languages than Perl in this area. Cheers Ladislav

 [24/34] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 30-Oct-2001 15:17


Hi, Ladislav, Ladislav Mecir wrote:
> ... As it looks, TCL really supports some level of dialecting and > that is why it surely is closer to natural languages than > Perl in this area. >
I guess it depends on which meaning of "closer" we're using... 1) Surface similarities? -- I do NOT want to program in anything that looks like human language. Consider that COBOL (the only major surviving programming language that pinned its hopes on being natural-language-like) looks like this: MOVE ZERO TO TOTAL. PERFORM ADDING-ACTION THRU ADDING-COMPLETE VARYING COUNT FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL COUNT > 10. ... ADDING-ACTION. ADD COUNT TO TOTAL. ADDING-COMPLETE. instead of the far more succinct (although not fake English) total: 0 for count 1 10 1 [total: total + count] or $total=0; foreach my $count (1..10) {$total += $count} or even int total=0; for (int count=1; count<=10; ++count) {total += count} Natural languages are big, redundant, sloppy, ambiguous, and have no concepts relating to things that I have to think about when trying to compose non-trivial processes: (re)definition of concepts on the fly; scope of nomenclature; abstraction, parameterization, and reuse of concepts/patterns, etc. 2) Deep linguistic structure, Zipf's Law, ad hoc shortcuts, irregular and non-orthogonal grammer? -- I have yet to see a programming language that comes close to Perl. (It even has adverbs and a pronoun!) -jn- -- ; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]} REBOL [] # despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"] ; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"} print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;

 [25/34] from: ammonjohnson::yahoo at: 30-Oct-2001 15:29


Define Dialect, please?!? Thanks!! Ammon

 [26/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 30-Oct-2001 22:42


Hi Joel,
> I guess it depends on which meaning of "closer" we're using...
I was referring strictly to the dialecting. In that sense (having/not having this ability to a certain degree) the languages can be compared. Cheers Ladislav

 [27/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 31-Oct-2001 1:08


> Define Dialect, please?!? > > Thanks!! > Ammon
Just a trial, OK? Example #1 The C printf dialect. The string s="%s" surely has got a different meaning than usual if used as a format string for the printf function in the C language. The format string is understood as a formatting language sentence in that case. Conclusion: we can find a dialect in C (a C "sublanguage"). Similar dialects are not the C language specialty. Their usefulness lies in the fact, that they are better suited for a particular purpose than the main language is. More examples: * switch in C - see the meaning of the 'case word * cycle blocks *- 'continue has different meaning in nested cycles e.g. * printf formatting strings * macro directives (#include #ifdef ...) * etc Example #2 Rebol PARSE function. Let's have a block: block: [copy result telephone] If we simply DO this block, we are evaluating the COPY function that should set 'result to refer to a copy of TELEPHONE. If we instead use block as a parse rule, BLOCK would have totally different meaning. Namely, 'result would be set to a copy of a part of PARSE INPUT argument that would satisfy the TELEPHONE subrule. The difference isn't that big, but it is only natural, that 'copy should always communicate similar meaning, isn't it? There is a whole lot of native Rebol dialects, examples: * blocks treated as code can communicate totally different meanings than the same blocks treated as data * DO versus REDUCE versus COMPOSE - different handling of the contents of their BLOCK arguments * IF versus DO - DO always handles BLOCK argument as CODE, the behaviour of IF depends on the condition (treat BLOCK as data, or evaluate it?) * block as the SPEC argument of MAKE OBJECT! * block as the SPEC/BODY argument of the FUNC function * the VID * etc The existence of dialects doesn't distinguish these languages. The real difference is, that we can define our own REBOL dialects (using PARSE e.g.), while we cannot define our own C dialects without changing the language specification. A "buzzword" that communicates this meaning is, that REBOL is a language with meta-circular semantics. This feature makes the language much more communicative than any other language not having this feature is. HTH Ladislav

 [28/34] from: ammonjohnson:y:ahoo at: 30-Oct-2001 19:51


Ok, with that in mind, & what Joel says, maybe Perl doesn't do dialecting as well as it seems like it did (Its been a little while since I touched it, REBOL Rules!) I stand corrected. ;-) Enjoy!! Ammon PS you should still be able to do those funcs you showed me though!

 [29/34] from: rotenca:telvia:it at: 31-Oct-2001 16:33


> Example #2 Rebol PARSE function. Let's have a block: > block: [copy result telephone]
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> natural, that 'copy should always communicate similar meaning, isn't it? > There is a whole lot of native Rebol dialects, examples:
I like to think that: [copy result telephone] has no meaning before the program give it one. There are not keywords (words with fixed meanings). Before DO-ing it, you must give a meaning to the words of that block, binding them to a context. Everything is a dialect in Rebol.
> The existence of dialects doesn't distinguish these languages. The real > difference is, that we can define our own REBOL dialects (using PARSE e.g.),
Parse can be util to change the syntax, like in the parse dialect itself, where set-word and get-word have a different use, but context is the key for meaning: x: [copy result telephone] bind x in context [copy: :+ result: 3 telephone: 5] 'self ; now the words in x have others meanings until we re-bind them do x bind x in context [copy: :view result: :layout telephone: [button ""]] 'self do x
> A "buzzword" that communicates this meaning is, that REBOL is a language > with meta-circular semantics. This feature makes the language much more > communicative than any other language not having this feature is.
Semantic -> bind, parse cannot directly change the meaning of a word. Fixed, in Rebol, are only some syntax rules: the use of "[]", of "()", strings {}, set-word, get-word, comment ; and little more. Datatypes are almost fixed (to-word is not datatype aware) but only because RT did not give us the mode to change the load function to change/add/remove some datatypes.
> Ladislav
--- Ciao Romano

 [30/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 31-Oct-2001 19:33


Hi, I made a mistake writing the description, my apologies (I warned you, this is not an easy notion to define). The correct description would be: If we DO a BLOCK, we evaluate the words it contains according to the normal semantic rules (you can find their description e.g. at my Rebsite). That is true regardless of the context the words are bound to. If we instead used block as a parse rule, BLOCK would have been evaluated differently i.e. not according to the normal semantic rules. That is again true regardless of the context the words are bound to. [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. The existence of dialects doesn't distinguish (C and Rebol e.g.) languages. 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. 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?) A "buzzword" that communicates this meaning is, that REBOL is a language with meta-circular semantics. The above feature makes the language much more communicative than any other language not having the feature is. Hope the text is a little bit more consistent now. Regards Ladislav

 [31/34] 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

 [32/34] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 2-Nov-2001 16:50


Hi Romano, ...
> 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.
I think, that it can be paraphrased as follows: "Rebol has very simple syntax".(no keywords, little punctuation, etc.) ...
> Yes, also if, to me, is not clear the true difference between a macro and
a
> non-macro language.
I am not going to write a definition. I point you to the description of C macro language: #include, #define, #ifdef, etc. as opposed to the C 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).
These all are semantics. Consider the following code: [ a: | "1"] Syntactically it is Rebol. Even if you knew the binding of the words you wouldn't know what is the meaning of it as a whole, because it would depend on the way how would you interpret it. The meaning (the semantics) differs if we use the code as an argument of DO or as an argument of PARSE, etc.

 [33/34] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 2-Nov-2001 10:54


Hi, Romano, Romano Paolo Tenca wrote:
> Hi, Ladislav > > Rebol can easily handle blocks, which can be basically considered
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> Yes, also if, to me, is not clear the true difference between a > macro and a non-macro language.
I'd prefer to say that REBOL doesn't *need* a distinct macro language. In a programming language context, I believe it's fair to say that language X is being *used as* a macro language if one is using it to write code that creates source code. This is particularly relevant to programming language implementations that (as is typical with c) run source code thru a compiler to produce object code when then is able to be run. Languages which can * interpret (or compile on demand) newly-constructed code, and * explore and manipulate the run-time representation of their code, can serve as their own macro language, thus eliminating the need for learning a separate syntax and performing a separate processing step. Such languages include LISP and REBOL. Of course, it's entirely possible to write code (in whatever language one wishes) that would construct REBOL source code. In such a case, one would be using that other language as a REBOL macro-language (but without "official" sanction, of course! ;-) As for the discussion of syntax, I'm working on an article now that will address some aspects (and consequences) of REBOL's choice of lexical-only syntax. -jn-

 [34/34] from: rotenca:telvia:it at: 5-Nov-2001 17:33


Hi, Ladislav
> I think, that it can be paraphrased as follows: "Rebol has very simple > syntax".(no keywords, little punctuation, etc.)
Not only: Rebol has little fixed semantic (keywords).
> > I'm not sure. I think that semantic refers to the meaning of words, not to > > syntax rules. When I listen the word "semantic",
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
> on the way how would you interpret it. The meaning (the semantics) differs > if we use the code as an argument of DO or as an argument of PARSE, etc.
For me, semantic + syntax = meaning. Semantic and syntax are two different fields and togheter make the meaning of a sentence. Your vision makes no difference between meaning and semantic. So we are using two different notion of semantic. In few words, for me: syntax: sequence of words semantic: meaning of words The meaning can change if you change semantic (bind) or if you change syntax (parse or other), but it is not the same thing which you are changing. --- Ciao Romano

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