* Konstantin Knizhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [031217 10:40]:
>
> Hello Tim,
>
> Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 8:01:14 PM, you wrote:
>
> >> operations. You have to use something like this:
> >>
> >> h: find/tail hash key
> >> either h [change h key value] [append append hash key value]
> >>
> >> instead of
> >>
> >> hash[key] = value
>
> TJ> Grrr! I *hate* doing that, and in python I have to do
> TJ> it a lot!
> TJ> In rebol, I just do
>
> TJ> hash/que 'val key
>
> TJ> much nicer, it took me half a day to implement
> TJ> my own object, but it was well worth it.
>
> Do not forget to say "from my point of view..."
always my point of view...
> I think that a lot of other people will consider "hash[key] = value"
> syntax much clearer and simpler than "hash/que 'val key".
I implement parallel systems in python and rebol, data-structure
driven schemes for building dynamic forms that read and write
databases... and there's a hell of a lot less quoting in
rebol than in python. That's more important to me... And there's
also a lot less general coding in rebol than in python.
*but* I find the python scales better. For me. And I like a
lot of python OOP techniques. I love them both!
> But it is a matter of taste and so can not be discussed - somebody like
>
> >> in most other high-level languages.
>
> TJ> All language have their strengths and weaknesses, *and* their "best
> TJ> fits".
>
> Yes, all attempts to create some "best" universal language are
> failed. Each language has its own advantages and its own domain.
Not only that, but the customer or the nature of the customer
can dictate the language...
> TJ> Mysql is a best fit for rebol IMHO, rebol mysql access on our large,
> TJ> multi-language projects beats perl and python hands down both
> TJ> in access speed and in impelementation/coding.
>
> MySQL is certainly best solution when you are implementing some server
> application. But even in this case DyBASE has some advantages:
> - efficient transaction mechanism
> - transparent object loading and storing (I hope you do will not say that
> packing/unpacking data from relational database is "nicer" than...
> lack of packing/unpacking).
> But DyBASE is positioned for another kind of applications - which
> needs embedded database engine. If your application needs to store
> some data between sessions, you will not include MySQL in
> distribution, will you? And require user to setup, configure and
> administrate it.
> So, as well as programming languages, DyBASE has its own niche.
>
> TJ> One of Rebol's strengths
> TJ> and the mysql-protocol exploits that splendidly.
>
> Hmm, and in which language TCP/IP is not native?
Read this again:
> TJ> is TCP/IP is native (compiled into the binray)
This is the second thread that I've seen in a week, in which
someone without an in-depth knowledge of rebol coding techniques
has introduced themselves to this list by making criticisms
of rebol. I make a living, not by being a brilliant programmer,
but by providing a good product. That's the bottom line.
If I were introduce a product of mine to say the python or
the perl community, I would not begin by criticizing the target
language. It would be counter-productive of my goals....
'nuf said on this topic, I'll check out your stuff to see
what sort of 'fit' it has for my python or my rebol systems.
Good thread..
tj
--
Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
