> Even if it were feasible to build a REBOL-onto-JVM compiler of
> comparable quality to Kawa, I wonder whether the brainpower might be
> more profitably spent on other REBOL promotion and support issues:
> documentation, more tutorials, building a "standard library" of
> widely-needed and reusable objects/functions, etc.
Personally I agree. I thing it would be better to spend time on
using/developing the current REBOL than building another. One problem
with two not-quite-the-same implementations is having to keep them in
sync with each other.
Similar to the JVM is the microsoft .NET platform. Many languages have
been ported to .NET but due to difficulties most of the languages have
had to have subtle changes or not implement the more difficult parts
of the languages (like call/cc for example).
> Thanks for the very interesting link! I'll plan to read more on what
> they're doing with Kawa.
You're welcome!
Cheers,
Chris.
