[WAS /compiler] Scheme lisp or rebol?
[1/1] from: rebolinth::nodep::dds::nl at: 19-Nov-2002 21:52
Hiya Tim, Well yes let me hook into your story below, First of all I must realy say that REBOL is the only language i worked with that has the abbility to stand almost 75% near the readable type of programming languages. Wether Rebol is quick or Rebol is an Intepreter does not bother me at all, what for me is very important is that the RT managed to put a Language into the world that is Linguestic Felixbler then any other programing language. I worked with assembly, lips, prolog, C, pascal , basic, scheme, orberon, icon, tcl, perl, pyhton, php, xml, https, Shell scripts and all other flavors or putting 1 + 1 together, but the only one that was able to manage a linguestic independence was absolutly Rebol, thats why it gets my attention. :) Secondly, and this may sound strange, I was searching for 5 years, and i was following the developers very closely the last 6 years, for a language that could to this => send "hello" to remote ip! in a ONE-LINER! There was NOT 1 programming language outthere that mange to do this befor 1998! So i ran into rebol, a very clever idea from Carl to hookon the the currently networking community, but he did it good! OKay Rebol is still young, but its powerfull, and in the right hands it sure will win the harts of many programmers. If mankind copys a langugage they should do it good, i think Carl did a good job, not to speek about phyton (thats a louse copy of perl, which on its turn is a not readable version of C :-) Well its probably not usefull what i wrote but rebol is on the right track thats a fact. With some more years it will become bigger and will get dialects even intergrated as natives into OSes.. Damm.. :-) i talking too much... im off roaming my info? diner: [ code ] (R)egards, Norman. -> Hi Ammon: (Rhetorical question, rhetorical answer) -> Disclaimer: I'm a bread-butter-programmer that just happens to use rebol -> and consider myself a mechanic among engineers and theoreticians when it -> comes to this list but to the best of my understanding I'll try the -> following: -> -> REBOL is dynamic because it is interpreted. And according to [Carl--rebol], -> rebol -> is influenced by LISP, and I can sure see that. Dynamic typing (a word -> is -> typed when it is assigned a value) is a feature of interpreted -> languages. -> -> It is arguable that Perl gains performance over rebol because the -> perl language syntax requires a certain amount of typing - -> defining a variable as *scalar* as opposed to *vector*. -> -> Some dynamic scripting languages like python are very up-front about the -> possibility that their scripted(interpreted) code might be slower than -> that of compiled application and suggest that prototyping might be the -> answer. -> -> On a more practical note, my company has been approached in the past -> regarding converting rebol code to "C" (which can then be compiled into -> free-standing executables that would (hopefully) offer superior -> performance). -> -> The argument as to whether rebol is *more* dynamic that LISP or scheme -> is -> probably moot. The convenience (and potentially smaller code set) of -> interpreted languages is certainly appealing to me. -> -> However when I and my fellow greying programmer colleagues drink too -> much latte and get into wild orgies of speculation, we come down to -> the agreement that the ideal programming language could be functional -> as interpreted *or* compiled. (bigloo is an example of such a language -> I think) -> -> I believe that there was a rebol compiler written at one time, or is -> that an "urban legend"? -> -- -> Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> -> http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com -> http://www.johnsons-web.com -> -- -> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to -> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the -> subject, without the quotes. -> ->