[REBOL] REALLY DISCOVER THE POWER OF REBOL Re:(4)
Hello, I'm not much of a programmer, but I've been following Rebol since it was Lava, and I like the direction it (or RT, or Carl) is taking us. Currently I'm enjoying Elan's book very much (great writing style, Elan!), and even though I haven't yet found my a good project for Rebol, I did manage to whip up a CGI-driven Instant Messenger (sorry folks, it's dead now =). I agree with Elan, that Rebol and RT will take us to new directions, silly as it may sound, I had the chance to play around with a Casio e-105 running WinCE. It holds great promise for the future, even though it's very limited right now, these "intelligent" machines will become very important (excuse the naive tone), and I certainly think embedded is the future. Even though Rebol is not small enough for embedded now (it needs an OS), remember what embedded meant ten years ago? Wrist watches have more RAM nowadays! ;o) So where is Rebol taking us today? Probably glue highway, for now at least. But what about tomorrow? Peer-to-peer, wireless, embedded? Who knows? (If you do, send me an email! ;o) I guess what I'm trying to say is: Carl won't f*ck something up in four years that took him 20 years to develop. Don't forget the enthousiasm you have for Rebol, couldn't possibly compare for Carl's... =) Good luck to all, Rachid - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 23:03 Subject: [REBOL] REALLY DISCOVER THE POWER OF REBOL Re:(3) > It is a strange beast, indeed. > > RT depends on developers to create applications to show that > REBOL is a viable alternative. > > Meanwhile, developers of the open source persuasion see tractor > application development as RT's responsibility, feeling REBOL itself > could be maintained by the open source community. > > This argument seems to crop up in relation to all sorts of products > nowadays. It seems "open source" as a marketing element is here to > stay. Somehow products that are "open source" have become > attractive to customers in the same way shampoos are attractive > when they have not been tested on laboratory animals. > > Only time will tell whether or not open source software like operating > systems and programming languages will become the standard vs. > commercial, closed source options. > > I tend to think open source operating systems and programming > languages WILL become the standard because of how we use them. > Like electricity, gasoline, etc., they are becoming resources which > need to be standardized. I see an inherent mistrust of closed source > products amongst many developers because a closed source > product can be taken away as quickly as it is given. It's kind of like > not wanting to commit to a relationship with someone who hides > things from you. This is how I perceive this behavior, at least. > > -Ryan > > >Things like Javascript have splintered badly, but that's > > because they were not Open Source, and vendors implemented their own > > closed source in different ways. All that happens is that people like > > Elan, Gabrial, Lemir, and Joel don't waste time ruminating about how REBOL > > is implemented. Rather, they can contribute working code to the project. > > Carl would still control what goes into the kernal. But Carl doesn't want > > that to happen, and so it won't. Pity, because it might free up some of > > his developers to create real-life reference applications, and then maybe > > more people would put REBOL to work. > > > > -Ted. > > > > >
[REBOL] REALLY DISCOVER THE POWER OF REBOL Re:(4)
Howdy, Ted: Isn't one of there an Open Source mantra about running around spreading FUD? (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) ;-) *grin* -jeff > On 9/22/2000 at 8:51 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You are starting to sound a little disheartened in your recents > posts.. :-( > > Oh, I've always been a little cranky, just haven't been > posting as much. The sad part is I'm still saying the same > things I said a year ago. My concern is that people get so > excited about REBOL as a language, they overlook its basic > needs as a competitive product. It would be nice to see > thoughtful, efficient design actually win for a change.
[REBOL] REALLY DISCOVER THE POWER OF REBOL Re:(4)
> On 9/22/2000 at 8:51 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > If we had the ability to compile code / or hide source in > distributions, it would help spur the development of 3rd party add-on > industry and the off the shelf apps too. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Maybe. But PHP and Perl don't have this, and apps are legion. > Meanwhile, Java does have this are apps are relatively sparse. > PERL was created awhile before Java, and I would expect had "first in mind" to many of us for many categories, CGI, script language, *n?x programming, internet programming, and maybe even cross platform. Java came in later in the game, successfully aquiring the cross platform category, but too late and under equiped to gain popularity anywhere else. Such as my father always says, "a day late and a dollar short." Now Java has just recently overtook Visual BASIC as the most widely used programming language in the world. I must attribute its success to many factors, the primary of course being it "owns" cross platform, but arguably the secondary factor is the fact its compilable. All that hype did'nt hurt either. --Ryan Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst www.iesco-dms.com 707-468-5400 We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world. --Buddha
[REBOL] REALLY DISCOVER THE POWER OF REBOL Re:(4)
> > And making REBOL open source would likely lend to its popularity as well. > But, as far as I know, Python and PHP are not businesses. Although, If I > remember correctly, MySQL is a business, free for non profitable use or > something. I would expect its biggest competitor to be PostgreSQL, which > is ironic to me. It would be interesting to know how the? You also make > me think of an interesting question, could making REBOL open source > actually scare away big business competition? > It would be interesting to know how the? Excuse me. What was going to say is it would be interesting to know how the market place evolved. --Ryan
[REBOL] REALLY DISCOVER THE POWER OF REBOL Re:(4)
On 9/21/2000 at 4:03 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >RT depends on developers to create applications to show that REBOL is a viable alternative. In real life, it's never been about which platform is better, it's always been about which applications are better. Java was ignored for years (ironically, the years when we needed it the most), until Sun finally wrote a browser with it. That was the proof of concept that pulled Java up by it's bootstraps. It's not enough to roll out the barrel, you have tap the keg. Express could easily do this for REBOL, if it ever ships. But something like it should have been done already. The RT team has poured out dozens of sample scripts demonstrating useful snippets, but what's really need is actual working applications. Successful language vendors have often bundled fully functional text editors and databases with their packages, or worked closely with tool vendors who write "the rest of the language." >Meanwhile, developers of the open source persuasion see tractor application development as RT's responsibility, feeling REBOL itself could be maintained by the open source community. With the proper support structure, this community could definately help with the development of REBOL, and release some of the paid staff for other work. But I sincerely doubt that REBOL Corporate has the proper mindset to make open source work for them. Heck, unlike everyone else in the industry, open or closed, they can't bear to publish so much as a bug list. -Ted.
[REBOL] REALLY DISCOVER THE POWER OF REBOL Re:(4)
On 9/21/2000 at 4:03 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I see an inherent mistrust of closed source products amongst many developers because a closed source product can be taken away as quickly as it is given. It's kind of like not wanting to commit to a relationship with someone who hides things from you. This is how I perceive this behavior, at least. That's very true Ryan. Once a product sucessfully goes Open Source, many of us believe that it is now here to stay. Many products which have not gone Open Source (like Mini-SQL for example) die when the developer loses interest, even when the product has a loyal following. I also see the terms "standards-based" and "open source" becoming strongly linked. Many people in the industry have finally come to realize that the development of a product is only the tip of the iceberg. The real investment (Cost of Ownership) is with training, integration, customization, and maintenance. Many people are much more willing to make that investment when they know the source for the product cannot be taken away. /COMMAND is a good example. My business decision isn't about whether the library costs $300 up front, it's about whether I want to pay someone $300 a day to build something with it. -Ted.
