Standardize REBOL?
[1/5] from: gmassar:dreamsoft at: 11-Sep-2000 14:50
Hi guys at RT,
Do you plan to submit REBOL specs to a standard committee? If
so, when will it be expected?
Thanks,
Geo...
PS: I am relatively new to REBOL. It looks a promise for a
better language.
[2/5] from: jhagman:infa:abo:fi at: 14-Sep-2000 15:31
Quoting [gmassar--dreamsoft--com] ([gmassar--dreamsoft--com]):
> Hi guys at RT,
I'm not one of them, but anyway.
> Do you plan to submit REBOL specs to a standard committee? If
> so, when will it be expected?
To standardize a language takes a _long_ time and it would be
preferred that the language in subject of standardizition is quite
stable.
REBOL is still quite a oung language and new features are added to it
and old features are refined. In my point of view there is no
possibility for standardization. It is not even needed at the moment
as there is just one company making REBOL products.
Yours,
Jussi
--
Jussi Hagman CS in Åbo Akademi University
Studentbyn 4 D 33 [juhagman--abo--fi]
20540 Åbo [jhagman--infa--abo--fi]
Finland
[3/5] from: bobr:dprc at: 14-Sep-2000 12:54
I disagree.
The language does not have to be "quite stable".
The C language was not very stable at all when we started to standardize it.
Same with C++. There were many conflicting implementations in both cases.
I say this from having served on X3J11, the C standards committee,
during my days as a compiler writer.
I do agree that the process takes
(to take a quote from the movie 6days7nites)
a long, long, long long long ... long! long time.
At 03:31 PM 9/14/00 +0300, [jhagman--infa--abo--fi] wrote:
>Quoting [gmassar--dreamsoft--com] ([gmassar--dreamsoft--com]):
>> Hi guys at RT,
<<quoted lines omitted: 15>>
>20540 Åbo [jhagman--infa--abo--fi]
>Finland
;# mailto: [bobr--dprc--net]
[4/5] from: gmassar:dreamsoft at: 14-Sep-2000 13:12
Please correct me if I am wrong.
1. Once a language specs is submitted to a standard body, the
owner of the specs retains the ownership as long as it is in
pending process. The specs will not be released during the long
process. The longer process, the better and more protective.
2. REBOL was invented more than two years ago. The language
syntax per se is supposed to be relatively stable in spite of
features being added or changed during experimental stage. It is
ready to submit to a standard body -- just the syntax, not the
library
.
Geo Massar
Veteran programmer
[bobr--dprc--net] wrote:
[5/5] from: bobr:dprc at: 14-Sep-2000 16:47
At 01:12 PM 9/14/00 -0700, [gmassar--dreamsoft--com] wrote:
>Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>1. Once a language specs is submitted to a standard body, the
>owner of the specs retains the ownership as long as it is in
>pending process. The specs will not be released during the long
>process. The longer process, the better and more protective.
The standards body I worked with offered no protection. It also required
that all participants be willing to change adapt/conform to remain part of
the process.
Of course that meant bell labs also had to do some changing which was kind
of hard for them to swallow.
;# mailto: [bobr--dprc--net]
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted