radical pov ... Re: Re: rebol/base
[1/3] from: petr::krenzelok::trz::cz at: 30-Sep-2002 19:01
>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 :
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted