radical pov ... Re: Re: rebol/base
[1/3] from: petr::krenzelok::trz::cz at: 30-Sep-2002 19:01
Anton wrote:
>Everyone thinks their particular scheme is the
>simplest. Rebol Technologies are the ones
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>for something comes when it is named well, and
>in advance.
Yes, it is - but enough is enough imo. Just ask someone from external
world, what do they know about Rebol? If they even recognise it, they
are already confused by all the following:
Rebol/Core
Rebol/View
Rebol/View/Pro
Rebol/Command
Rebol/Command/View
Rebol/Link
Rebol/Serve
Rebol/IOS
Rebol/Encap
not to mention Rebol/World, Rebol/Media, Rebol/Author, Rebol/Apache,
etc., which appeared here or there even in some of announcements,
articles, etc.
Now just add new name for stripped down light/base versions of all above
and watch the show. ;-)
How much /Core and /Base differ anyway? 20KB of size ... memory usage?
Missing functionality? Well - is it enough to take care? My suggestion
is - change Rebol architecture for good, do it clever way, allow options
and reduce product line - remove /Pro and /Command versions - add real
components. If you want version without access to system resources, call
it Rebol/Player, make installation process very easy, add auto-update
feature and you've got nice (browser) plug-in. But any other
diversification does not make sense ...
Sorry for bringing in different pov, maybe a radical one, but that's
just me (and those agreeing with me, staying silent ;-)
-pekr-
[2/3] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 30-Sep-2002 13:42
Hi, Petr,
Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> Yes, it is - but enough is enough imo. Just ask someone from
> external world, what do they know about Rebol? If they even
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> Rebol/Apache, etc., which appeared here or there even in some
> of announcements, articles, etc.
...
> ... My suggestion is - change Rebol architecture for good, do
> it clever way, allow options and reduce product line - remove
> /Pro and /Command versions - add real components...
>
> Sorry for bringing in different pov, maybe a radical one, but
> that's just me (and those agreeing with me, staying silent ;-)
>
This is me agreeing and being silent about it. ;-)
Or, as John Cage put it,
I have nothing to say and I am saying it.
There's a bit of irony here, in that REBOL claims (and delivers,
for the most part) to simplify things that are complicated and
confusing in (some) other languages. Yet many of the things
that are necessary for scaling and for "marketing" have ended up
appearing quite confusing.
Simplifying the claims/versions/deliverables and exposing some
simple, common mechanisms for extensions/modules would be A
Good Thing IMHO.
-jn-
[3/3] from: gerardcote:sympatico:ca at: 30-Sep-2002 15:00
Sorry to be late receiving these 2 last entries :
but I agree entirely with both of you.
Regards,
Gerard
P.S. I am now more "at ease" with the naming conventions of REBOL products line but really
this
could have been simpler from the start - even if it is FUN to get it so
(but this is unduly difficult to memorize for the rest of us ...).
================================================================
> Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> >
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
> > that's just me (and those agreeing with me, staying silent ;-)
> >
And Joel replies as :
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted