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

rebol crystals: [lucid rocks] => was {Re: Re: Browser gripe}

 [1/4] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 17-Mar-2002 14:33


Hi Steve, Gregg & list Thanks.. Yes I think everyone here on the list feel that rebol 'rocks' in multiple ways..
> Rebol takes the fragile-ness out of Internet programming, and provides > safe solid and simple ways for developers and users to incorporate the > Internet into their multimedia applications.
Q1: How+why does it take the "the fragile-ness out of Internet programming" ? To answer that we must answer what makes it fragile to begin with..
> I have written some bots which do middleware applications which simply > blow people away (And that "rocks" me!) so my wireless pieces are
Q2: What blows them away: concept, function, performance, speed of development ??
> brought together at the server and it is so simple to do.
Q3: So it is ease of development and simplicity of execution. => easy to make and run??
> And I have 6 Rebol clients connected to my embedded server which have > run for 24 hours without a hitch, doing lots of messaging. I would hate > to have tried to do that with plain old C/C++ or even plain old Java, > and the scripts are _tiny_.
I want to know more :-) Q4: Embedded server = IOS, Rugby, or your own ? Q5: "24hours" you mean one whole day or "all day, every day.." If so, for how long doing what? How much traffic, how many connections [sessions]?
> Hope that is "concrete" (lucid) enough for now! ;-)
NO, not yet. I really do want to hear more .. Q6: What about REBOL is different architecturally, or tends towards better/different Internet architecture. What distinguishes REBOL when implementing a similar design written in Python or PHP JAVA or xyz...? I know Rebol is fun, fast, small, cross-platform and includes Internet protocols. But that is only a matter of degree, convenience and style. Q7: Does Rebol make you all think differently about problems? How does your approach differ when you use Rebol? Q8: What do you think its greatest strengths and virtues are? Q9: What do you think makes it unique? Q10: What do think it is best for and why? Q11: For any of the above questions, does IOS induce a different answer? regards ./Jason

 [2/4] from: steve:shireman:semaxwireless at: 18-Mar-2002 7:16


Jason Cunliffe wrote:
>Hi Steve, Gregg & list >Thanks.. Yes I think everyone here on the list feel that rebol 'rocks' in
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
>? >To answer that we must answer what makes it fragile to begin with..
Maybe one question at a time? Software Engineering has long been an oxymoron. I suspect it was a term made to glorify the practice of hacking,but give it better sound bytes and a justification for higher salaries. The "Software Problem" was highly publicized in the 1980's and 1990's, and Object-Oriented Programming was touted to be the solution, but has grossly failed to deliver. In fact, I would be as bold to say that the "Software Problem" has gotten worse, and Software is now even more fragile. I note people being afraid to upgrade (let's call it upgrade-a-phobia, the fear of the fragility of fresh newly written code) to the latest versions, whether Netscape, Internet Exploder, or even GVIM, The "Software Problem" was approached for a while with Application Frameworks, trying to make it more difficult for programmers to lock-up the system with errant code. These were kinda cool as they were introduced, but their APIs or SDKs became mired in complexity, and again, the cure was worse than the disease. Part of the problem was that when C was invented (and I have worked with C since Bell Labs introduced it in the 1970's) was that it was supposed to be portable, but if you read the first chapter of the C books, you will see (pun intended) that the OS was blatently ignored, and as with the traditional over-specialization approach we inherited from the Industrial Revolution the language and the OS were carved apart, destroying the fun part of programming, which early Basic rom interpreters had (a holisting thing) where the language and OS were married together, and made programming and experimentation easy. And can't leave out Smalltalk. Those early Basic and Smalltalk interpreters were pretty robust, and if you crashed something, well, at least you could work your way out, and the OS tried to give you some information about the crash. Then Java tried again to marry the OS and language, but picked a too-static language, but it was a good try, and brought some light to the technical Software darkness of the late 1990's. So Rebol is a holistic language plus environment which lets you crash your code safely, even safer than JVM. And I find this less fragile for programming. And the framework in it is much better than I could do myself, (in fact, better than anyone in the world could do themselves, except Carl Sassenrath, who knows how to pack those bytes in there with maximum power) so when I write a Reblet, it is less fragile, because it has an architecture beneath it which does the dirty work. Not sure if that answers your Q1, but thought I would give it a stab. Beats working...;-) Steve Shireman The Computer Revolution _Has_ Started...

 [3/4] from: sunandadh:aol at: 18-Mar-2002 9:24


Steve:
> Software Engineering has long been an oxymoron.
Like country music!?
> I suspect it was a term > made to glorify the practice of hacking,but give it better sound bytes > and a justification for higher salaries. The "Software Problem" was > highly publicized in the 1980's and 1990's, and Object-Oriented > Programming was touted to be the solution, but has grossly failed to > deliver.
You can go back even further -- the term was invented (as far as I know) for a NATO conference in 1968 -- a bit before my working life started -- but they had all the same problems we do and much the same snake oil. Just one quote from the conference: In aiming at too many objectives the higher-level languages have, perhaps, proved to be useless to the layman, too complex for the novice and too restricted for the expert. I maintain that high-level programming languages have, to this extent, failed. (d=E2=80=99Agapeyeff)
> In fact, I would be as bold to say that the "Software Problem" has > gotten worse, and Software is now even more fragile.
Yes indeed. Environments are far too complicated and change too fast. If it wasn't for the fact that Microsoft have brainwashed an entire generation into lowered expectations ("the new version of MS-xxx only falls over five times=20a day when running on an otherwise empty machine") most developers would have=20a tarnished reputation. The traditional approach to solving the software engineering problem has been to create new languages. It's not worked to date but -- hey I wouldn't be a developer if I wasn't hopelessly optimistic -- maybe Rebol will be the One. Sunanda.

 [4/4] from: pwoodward:cncdsl at: 18-Mar-2002 10:16


Jason -
> Q6: What about REBOL is different architecturally, or tends towards > better/different Internet architecture. What distinguishes REBOL when > implementing a similar design written in Python or PHP JAVA or xyz...? > > I know Rebol is fun, fast, small, cross-platform and includes Internet > protocols. But that is only a matter of degree, convenience and style.
True - but that's one heck of a difference. Java really raised the bar a few years ago by including (what at the time seemed like) a very rich set of classes to build applications on top of. Sure, you could use other class heirarchies (MFC anyone? Lotus Notes?) - but by including and assuring some basic level of functionality in the SDK, they helped make it so Developers could concentrate on the software that needed to be built, instead of doing yet another memory manager, and linked list implementation. REBOL is taking those steps as well. By making it trivial to access the Internet from within an application, one can start to build applications that synergistically take advantage of the Internet. In part it's an alternative to the "Web Services" stuff you keep hearing about. REBOL (with add-ons like Rugby - or IOS) makes it easy to build applications that leverage remote services. Whether it's fetching stock quotes, or the current weather. IOS or Rugby can be used to build relatively powerful Intranet applications for organizations. So the matters of degree, convenience, and style really do matter. They are the barriers to developer adoption of features.
> Q7: Does Rebol make you all think differently about problems? How does
your
> approach differ when you use Rebol?
Yes and no. It can really depend on what kind of problem you're solving. Much like Python - you can write quick one-off scripts - with little thought to their object orientatedness, or any real planning. On the otherhand, it is possible to build very reusable bits and pieces. My approach hasn't really changed when using REBOL. I have the tendency to approach things proceduraly when working with it though. Except when writing /View scripts, I don't find myself doing much event-driven or remotely object-oriented things.
> Q8: What do you think its greatest strengths and virtues are?
REBOL, like Java brought a lot of the joy back into programming for me. Working in C/C++ (and Pascal before that) was a real trial. Even simple things required a lot of work, and setup code. With REBOL - it's easier to dive in, and accomplish something. Instead of writing two pages of setup code to open a video screen, and setup the display raster. Plus, when I want to automate internet based activities, it's really easy.
> Q9: What do you think makes it unique?
It is what it is. It has similarities to things like Lisp or Scheme - but it is it's own language.
> Q10: What do think it is best for and why?
It's best for the newer breed of applications that are on their way. Ones which are going to leverage the interconnectedness of systems. I can imagine a "dash board" style application that pulls data from all sorts of sources, aggregating and comingling it to present a coherent, single source interface to that information. That way you're not opening your browser, and going to 5 or 10 different sites/pages each with their own navigation system.
> Q11: For any of the above questions, does IOS induce a different answer?
Not really, other than it raises the bar again on what features and services you can rely on when developing an application. Sharing data securely with people becomes pretty trivial. - Porter Woodward

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