Thomas: > i don't have anything against the authors of those scripts, they > probably didn't know about schemes or were impressed by them (as you > seem to be). what they ended up doing doesn't seem to me to correspond > to how rebol was intended to be used. it is quite confusing to use for > users and i bet their implementation has been more complicated than if > they had used a scheme.
I think that's a little unfair, even if true. It's a bit like blaming pioneers for not having used the freeways their grandchildren built. REBOL has a deep (as opposed to steep) learning curve. You can hack things at the surface level (I know I do) and you can delve deep into its elegance. But delving deep takes time. Many early examples of code show people on that learning curve. I know, just from looking at the code I've written over the past three years, I can see archaeological layers in the styles and approaches I've taken. What would be good in the Library is some "state of the art" scripts to replace some of the pioneering efforts. The best way to accomplish that is contribute such scripts: do what the pioneers did; it's the way we can all make progress. Sunanda. -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
