Anton wrote: >Everyone thinks their particular scheme is the >simplest. Rebol Technologies are the ones >actually doing the work. >I also think choosing appropriate names is one >of the most important things. A strong vision >for something comes when it is named well, and >in advance. > > Yes, it is - but enough is enough imo. Just ask someone from external world, what do they know about Rebol? If they even recognise it, they are already confused by all the following:
Rebol/Core Rebol/View Rebol/View/Pro Rebol/Command Rebol/Command/View Rebol/Link Rebol/Serve Rebol/IOS Rebol/Encap not to mention Rebol/World, Rebol/Media, Rebol/Author, Rebol/Apache, etc., which appeared here or there even in some of announcements, articles, etc. Now just add new name for stripped down light/base versions of all above and watch the show. ;-) How much /Core and /Base differ anyway? 20KB of size ... memory usage? Missing functionality? Well - is it enough to take care? My suggestion is - change Rebol architecture for good, do it clever way, allow options and reduce product line - remove /Pro and /Command versions - add real components. If you want version without access to system resources, call it Rebol/Player, make installation process very easy, add auto-update feature and you've got nice (browser) plug-in. But any other diversification does not make sense ... Sorry for bringing in different pov, maybe a radical one, but that's just me (and those agreeing with me, staying silent ;-) -pekr- >Anton. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
