> Well imagine following:
>
> in pseudo-code:
>
> ftpcopy rebol to host x
> open telnetsession to host "x"
> run rebol on host "x"
>
> Do you see the possibilities?
>
> Regards
> Jochen
You're right with this one, but then again, if rebol will be accessible on
the other side, you can/could execute your code in a more direct manner.
We're talking about local execution here. I have no problem with executing
programs on other machines, with rebol or not, but be it rebol, it would
be much easier and simpler to implement.
Regarding Elan's answer:
> REBOL/Command gives you quite a lot of access to the OS (launching
> programs,
> redirecting program output to the console, loading libraries
> ...). What's wrong with paying for a program? ;-)
I'm not against commercial software, but there have been many points and
questions already raised by Pekr. Not going into this... (again!?:)
But what you're telling me is: if you want to execute an external program,
pay $250 for it. You know, I need a single system call! I like the
abilities that /Command gives you, but I don't need all this to do exec.
I'm not saying you can't go with wrap-arounds, but WHY???
Imagine all the great networking code that's in REBoL would be there, but
there would be no "listen". You would be offered a /Network version for
just a $250 (cause, you know "listen", that's for servers, right?).
I hope you get the idea. I'm not saying I don't want to pay for anything,
nor trying to state anything bad about REBoL. This is about something
else...
Jano
