Hello Brett:
I've been programming in C for 10 years. Full time for 4 1/2 and
mostly CGI for 3 1/2, and I have added OOP with C++ in the last two.
I have found rebol daunting for a couple of reasons.
1)I have a lot of legacy code and I hated to "throw it away".
2)The paradigm is 'way different from c/c++.
Having said that, I'm finding that legacy is as much in algorithm
as in language-specific code. Rebol code can be difficult to
read - especially when one is not familar with the "linguistic
paradigm". C/C++ can be VERY readable if one take the time
to document succintly and perhaps makes constructive use of
the preprocessor.
It all boils down to style.
I'm rewriting my basic CGI overhead to do form processing. I'm
guessing it takes about 1/3 the code as C.
Am using rebol to develop a system for updating webpage postings
from a cell phone.
I have built an odbc-compliant dbms to online queries using C++
and adapting rebol as the front end will probably be just a pleasure!
Also, I think the rebol has the potential to be the flagship of
the new generation of wireless devices as for instance a OS
command-interpreter. Other companies are already looking at
it for that reason.
Regards
Tim Johnson
At 09:38 PM 5/31/00 +1000, you wrote:
> When I first read on Rebol's site that the distinction between code and
>data is blurred I cheered. I looked at the language constructs and thought
>that looks like some of my psuedo code. But then hmm...now what?
>is(/are). It is described as a messaging language. Between what and what?
>I can see how flexible it is. Less clear is the readability of the code
>I've seen. I would really appreciate it if people could tell me what
>applications of Rebol they have made (or dreamt of) that clearly show
>Rebol (with it's announced features) as being a better choice than a
>general purpose language for those applications. Thank's for your
>time. Brett Handley.
