On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:38:59 -0500, Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wasn't java supposed to take over IT as the provider of top to bottom
> tools which every one would want or could not resist!?!?
Yes, and I hear it again and again once a while.
> IMHO Java is dying... sl
Max wrote:
> I hope MS does not do this with python, but I'm sure they are considering
something. Is C# their answer to python and rebol ??
No. C#, BASIC.net, Java.net and JScript.net are their answer to Java and
JavaScript. :)
--
Andrew J Martin
ICQ: 26227169
http://www.rebol.it/Valley/
http:
>I crudely summed this difference up some time ago by saying that Python is
>a reader's language, while Rebol is a writer's one. The same used to be said
>of FORTH also.
>
>what do you think?
>
>
Start writing ;-)
--Maarten
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to
[EMAIL PROTE
> > I disagree. Java seems to be doing much *better* these days.
> > Lots of cool
> > projects and people building frameworks which interoperate.
>
> that's news to me... thanks for setting records straight !
> I guess I'm burying myself too deeply in python and rebol.
>
> Is it still slow?
I don
Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 9:08:15 PM, Maxim wrote:
>> Max wrote:
>>> IMHO Java is dying... slowly but surely.
>> I disagree. Java seems to be doing much *better* these days. Lots
>> of cool projects and people building farmeworks which interoperate.
> that's news to me... thanks for settin
> Max wrote:
> > IMHO Java is dying... slowly but surely. probably because
> microsoft
> split the java idea with their own Jscript and encouraged as
> many different
> java platforms, in order to discredit it in the long-run with
> fragmented
> developer/code bases.
>
> I disagree. Java see
Max wrote:
> IMHO Java is dying... slowly but surely. probably because microsoft
split the java idea with their own Jscript and encouraged as many different
java platforms, in order to discredit it in the long-run with fragmented
developer/code bases.
I disagree. Java seems to be doing much *be
t M. Münch" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: oss revisited (briefly!)
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:52:14 -0600, Joel Neely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > You must hav
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:52:14 -0600, Joel Neely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> You must have an interesting definition of "didn't work"!
Hi, of course this depends on the situation. And "does work" includes,
cost effective, low complexity, low bandwith etc. always
total-cost-of-ownership.
> Jus
Hi, Robert,
Robert M. Münch wrote:
>
> ... As I'm doing a lot of software &
> project proposal evaluation for my customers, the first questions to
> vendors is: Hmm... it's a Java product. Why? Java didn't work on the
> desktop, why should it on the server?
>
You must have an interesting de
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:29:51 -0500, Rod Gaither <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I don't use Java as a
> developer myself but I am now using Java based
> products every day.
Hi, that's what I try to avoid too. As I'm doing a lot of software &
project proposal evaluation for my customers, the first
>>>implementation, without a publicly available specification. That
>>>means that any effort to create another implementation is based on
>>>inferences, guesswork, etc. etc. etc. and can't be guaranteed to
>>>match precisely the behavior of the implementation from RT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, y
Hi, David,
David Feugey wrote:
>>>... no OSS version of the language means no fragmentation
>>>of the source code.
>>
>>That simply doesn't follow. Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. etc. etc.
>>have been open source from the beginning, and don't suffer from the
>>oft-threatened specter of fragmentation.
I find rebol's community fascinating.
We all like rebol because its different and allows the control of changing everything
to our taste in a very easy manner. Its just TOO easy and addictive!
so stop talking about unity... argghh ... grin .. huh and compatibility
... we hates
* Joel Neely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040213 07:34]:
<..>
> That simply doesn't follow. Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. etc. etc.
> have been open source from the beginning, and don't suffer from the
> oft-threatened specter of fragmentation. It simply hasn't happened.
But a cautionary tale *would* be
Rod Gaither a écrit :
> I don't use Java as a
> developer myself but I am now using Java based
> products every day.
I would like to do that with Rebol applications :)
> Of course part of this is due to decent Java support
> on Mac OS X and the lack of some products on that
> platform.
Yes, a v
On Feb 13, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> Yes, but I also wonder WHO of us uses Java productively? Because, last
> time I talked to Cyphre - who did some game in Java for his company,
> complained about how BAD acutally compatibility is, and wonders if SUN
> cares about QA assurance,
Petr Krenzelok a écrit :
> Joel Neely napsal(a):
> Yes, but I also wonder WHO of us uses Java productively? Because, last
> time I talked to Cyphre - who did some game in Java for his company,
> complained about how BAD acutally compatibility is, and wonders if SUN
> cares about QA assurance,
Joel Neely a écrit :
> Hi, David,
>
> The punch-line (from my perspective) is at the end.
>
> David Feugey wrote:
>
>>There are also big issues with portability.
>>
>>... no OSS version of the language means no fragmentation
>>of the source code.
>
> >
>
> That simply doesn't follow. Perl,
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sunanda:
> > If anything is going to nudge him further down a collaborative
> > approach, perhaps leading to a more open source model, that
> > experience may form an important part of it.
>
> Chris:
> > I think the 1.3 project shows that Carl and
Friday, February 13, 2004, 5:16:27 PM, Petr wrote:
> Joel Neely napsal(a):
>> Having a definitive specification makes it possible to learn more
>> efficiently then trial-and-error or ask-somebody-when-stumped, and
>> also makes it possible to distinguish implementation defects (bugs)
>> from ca
Joel Neely napsal(a):
>Having a definitive specification makes it possible to learn more
>efficiently then trial-and-error or ask-somebody-when-stumped, and
>also makes it possible to distinguish implementation defects (bugs)
>from cases of I-didn't-understand-that-feature.
>
>
>
Yes, but I als
Hi, David,
The punch-line (from my perspective) is at the end.
David Feugey wrote:
>
> There are also big issues with portability.
>
> ... no OSS version of the language means no fragmentation
> of the source code.
>
That simply doesn't follow. Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. etc. etc.
have been
Sunanda:
> If anything is going to nudge him further down a collaborative
> approach, perhaps leading to a more open source model, that
> experience may form an important part of it.
Chris:
> I think the 1.3 project shows that Carl and RT as-is can
> use those additional resources very well ...
Hi, Karl,
Karl Robillard wrote:
> I'm not a Java expert, but I assume that there is a formal specification for
> Java and that there are many implementations (Sun, IBM, Blackdown?). That
> may explain why people would be comfortable adopting Java but not REBOL.
>
The authoritative page is http
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:41:49 +0100, Maarten Koopmans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 from me. The SDK is an attractive offer, as it allows you to spread
> small single-click executables.
Yes, that's why I bought it. This product needs to be pushed much more and
IMO it's much underestimated.
>
Karl Robillard a écrit :
>I'm not a Java expert, but I assume that there is a formal specification for
>Java and that there are many implementations (Sun, IBM, Blackdown?). That
>may explain why people would be comfortable adopting Java but not REBOL.
>
>
Bof...
There are also big issues with
I'm not a Java expert, but I assume that there is a formal specification for
Java and that there are many implementations (Sun, IBM, Blackdown?). That
may explain why people would be comfortable adopting Java but not REBOL.
-Karl
On Monday 09 February 2004 19:32, Peter WA Wood wrote:
> I thin
Hi Robert,
--- ""Robert_M._Münch""
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:19:15 + (GMT), Ged Byrne
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > What benefits could Rebol/Core gain from cross
> > fertilisation with other open source projects like
> > OCAML and PLTScheme?
>
> I don
>>The product they do sell, such as the SDK or IOS could only benefit from
>>an enhanced
>>core.
>>
>>
>
>No, I don't agree. These can only benefit from higher sales numbers. It's
>a business questions, not a technical one. Robert
>
>
+1 from me. The SDK is an attractive offer, as it all
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:19:15 + (GMT), Ged Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If the code was open source, users would have the
> opportunity to add these features themselves, possibly
> based on the efforts of other open source projects.
Hi, maybe, but I'm mostly sure we will use the homoge
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:03:57 -0600, Joel Neely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> With all due respect, I think you're confusing two distinct issues here.
> To paraphrase ESR and RMS, open source is about "free as in free speech,
> not free as in free beer".
Hi, yes I know. BTW: Just to clarify thing
On 11-Feb-04, Tim Johnson wrote:
> In fact, as a long-time C programmer, I'm afraid that if I saw any
> of Carl's code, it would just make me feel stoopid. :-)
There was mention a while back by someone at RT of just how much
source code there was to REBOL, and it was a /huge/ amount. So never
m
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040210 00:36]:
<...>
> > I'm not trying to be argumentative (really!). Tim is right,
> > though, if you have to think of only one good thing
> > about oss, think more resources.
>
> I completely agree with both of you, and Tim's example about
> the /bina
* "Robert M. Münch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040210 03:20]:
>
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:36:10 -0900, Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > It is not just possible, but is probable, that a 'tipping point'
> > will be reached that will cause a sharp spike in increased linux
> > use. If t
Hi Robert,
--- ""Robert_M._Münch""
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:36:10 -0900, Tim Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
[...]
> Well, why not? If someone can tell me a really
> benefit Rebol being
> open-source I might change my POV. Sorry, if this
> sound a bit ha
Hi, Robert,
Just my $0.02 here... However, let me emphasize that I'm not agitating
for a change of RT position here, but just clarifying what I understand
open source to be about, and some benefits of open source.
Robert M. Münch wrote:
>
> Hi, I never undestand what the problem is? What's the
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:36:10 -0900, Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It is not just possible, but is probable, that a 'tipping point'
> will be reached that will cause a sharp spike in increased linux
> use. If there is not an 'open source' rebol, rebol will lose out.
Hi, I never u
Chris:
> Frankly, I'd rather buy a QA'd, tested, polished REBOL "distribution"
> that packages core and (contributed) modules than anything that's
> currently on offer, or a quarterly subscription to such a distribution
> or whatever.
That's the approach that has made Redhat and others commerc
I think there was a fundamental flaw in the original posters argument
which I thought boiled down to Rebol will never succeed on Linux
because it isn't open source. This does not seem to have held back
Java's adoption in the OSS world.
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an ema
> If anything is going to nudge him further down a collaborative
> approach, perhaps leading to a more open source model, that
> experience may form an important part of it.
I think the 1.3 project shows that Carl and RT as-is can use those
additional resources very well ...
What the benefits o
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:24:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Open source is a set of marketing strategies <...snip>
>
No, open source means the source is open. It doesn't need to be any more
complicated than this. The reasons it is a Good Thing(tm) :-) have
been exhaustively covered
Tom:
> My wishful thinking forces me to bring up what may be a dead horse
> issue, so I apologise in advance. What's up with rebol and open
> source these days? Rsharp seems stalled.
Just a few comments to throw into a general discussion.
Open source is not the only model for software distri
* Tom Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040208 08:59]:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> My wishful thinking forces me to bring up what may be a dead horse
> issue, so I apologise in advance. What's up with rebol and open
> source these days? Rsharp seems stalled.
It is not just possible, but is probable, that
44 matches
Mail list logo
