Here's a very intriguing article about programming languages called
"Worse Is Better" that was originally published back in 1991 and
compares the Lisp approach with the approach that brought us C and
UNIX. Very interesting, IMHO, to see where REBOL might fit in to this
theory. Any article th
Hi,
On my PC running BeOS 5.0.1 Pro Edition, I can't get any of REBOL's
networking features to work, with either REBOL/core 2.4.24.5.2 or REBOL
/view 0.10.18.5.2. For example:
REBOL/View 0.10.18.5.2 28-Jul-2000
Copyright 2000 REBOL Technologies. All rights reserved.
Type DEMO to run demo if i
> Had to take a quick break from the docs to regain sanity, so wrote this
insanely fun demo script that I thought you might enjoy.
Cool! (and very inspirational!) It's so easy for me to forget that so much
cool stuff can be done with so little code when you have the right language
and infrastruc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> An unescaped é is not valid in URLs, it should be encoded as %E9
> http://www.melbourne.net/antonr/résumé.html fails for me in IE5.5, but works
> in NT4.7
> http://www.melbourne.net/antonr/r%E9sum%E9.html works in both.
>
> More details can be found in RFCs 1738 and 23
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Grep works similarly as REBOL currently does, considering
> arguments preceded by - to be switches regardless of where
> they are placed. For example:
>
> Before and after args:
>
> grep -A 3 foo * -vi
>
> In between and after args:
>
> gre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wow, that makes my REBOL program look puny. A mere 7242 lines (including
> comments). And I was feeling so proud of it. Wh!
You wrote a 7000 line REBOL program? That's pretty cool.. I'd love to
take a look at that, is it publically available? What does your prog
Thanks to everyone who replied to my post on this topic, especially Gary
and Brett! I hope to find time to think about this a little more and
maybe type up a few more thoughts, but in the meantime, I got an
interesting message from Marcel Weiher on the MacOS X mailing list today
with some quotes
Oops, my apologies for the awful line-wrapping on that last message. I
originally wrote it in pine, which wrapped it to 78 columns, and when I
resent it in Netscape, it chopped it down to 72 columns leaving all
those trailing words... :-(
-Jake
Hi all,
Here's something I've been thinking about since talking to a friend
about REBOL and its prospects. He said that just about any scripting
language can handle scripts of a few hundred lines, but the real
challenge for REBOL will be in whether or not it can handle large-scale
programs as we
Hi all,
Here's a longish rant I originally sent to some friends this weekend
about where I see REBOL having a lot of promise in "the big picture."
I'm sure I'm not saying anything that RT isn't already thinking of, but
considering how long it's taken me to really GET what REBOL may mean for
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you pass items beginning with a dash (-switch) as
> arguments to the script, how would you suggest REBOL find
> it's own command line switches?
To make this work as Sean expected, the answer is simple: REBOL should
find its own command line switches *before*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> DOing formed blocks is sort of inelegant. You're taking a
> REBOL data structure, a block, and then turning it into a
> string. By the DOing the string the interpreter actually
> turns the string back into a block of REBOL data types
> before evaluating it.
Just noticed a minor goof in the message I just sent. In order for
REBOL to be able to produce the argument block:
> ["loop" "5" "[print" {"foo"]}]
the original input would have to be, not:
> $ myscript.r loop 5 [print "foo"]
but:
$ myscript.r loop 5 [print \"foo\"]
This doesn't invalidate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The argument passing scheme for REBOL needs to address two
> things: 1) Providing args from command line, of course
> and 2) providing an immediately DOable REBOL expression.
1) How many people are going to *want* an immediately DOable REBOL
expression? I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> BTW When I was first learning REBOL last fall I tried programming many of
> the samples from the "Wizard Book" by Sussman et. al.. I found that it was
> not really possible to write programs with the same behavior as the Scheme
> examples, possibly because of the lack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I concur.
> People *building* difficult stuff can't see the difficulty because they know the
>stuff by name, having seen it grow from day one. As I may have said earlier, I can
>feel the power of parse, I can almost grasp it, but there's something *just* out of
>reac
I need a little bit of help trying to parse something.. I've modified
makespec.r to add a couple of new options to help me generate some HTML
documentation for a project I'm working on. They're not very general
purpose options, but I'm quite happy with how easy it was to get
something quick-and-
> Isn't a quine supposed to be the minimal code needed to print out itself?
It's good if it can be done in one line. In REBOL, wouldn't it be:
>
> do a: [print ["do a:" mold a]]
You're right, of course. I should have spent a little more time and tried
to optimize it down to one line myself, b
Just for fun: here's one of my first little exercises to get to know REBOL
better: a "quine". This is a program which prints out its own source code
when you run it. Here was my first attempt:
REBOL [
Title: "A simple REBOL quine"
Author: "Jake Hamby"
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
