Slashdot Mirror


Carl Sassenrath Talks About REBOL

Rebelos writes: "REBOL is a powerful software technology (ever thought that you could write a full blown GUI Instant Messenger in only 7 KB of source code?) optimized specifically for Internet usage. Rebol Tech, the company behind REBOL, consists of only 10 people and they claim they can compete and go against .NET and Microsoft's dubious plans. Their platform has been ported to 44 operating systems so far! Take a look as to what Carl Sassenrath, ex-AmigaOS/Commodore engineer and founder of Rebol, says at OSNews about the Rebol platform, its deployment, other programming languagees, Microsoft etc." The buzzwords are pretty thick in here, and the ideas are interesting, if a little vague. If the interview makes you curious, check out the previous stories touching on Rebol as well.

246 comments

  1. OMG by Niksie3 · · Score: 0

    Holy Fuck, 7kb of code and runs on 44 platforms??? competes net??? certenly anti-bloat.

    I think net would take many many many megs. If this really competes then we are in for something!!!

    --
    Sig you!
    1. Re:OMG by Bander · · Score: 1
      Umm, 7k of user code, and megabytes of library code. :^)

      Bander

  2. Re:C: A Dead Language? by andres9606t · · Score: 1

    I hope this is a joke... Otherwise I am going into the corner to shoot myself once Linux based on VB (Thank you Microsloth) comes out.

  3. ugly.. by seann · · Score: 0

    I took one look at this

    and thought it was ugly.

    I remember antionline.com doing ficshe about this a few years back, and I though it was ugly then, and ugly now.

    But then again this is a pagent winner compared to perl, and we all know what perl does.

    --
    I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    1. Re:ugly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Did anyone ever think that more verbose languages are that way because it's simply easier to understand and maintain?

    2. Re:ugly.. by bot-man · · Score: 1

      In the eyes of the beholder. Pretty slick... really quite inventive. At least they're trying to do something new and useful. Bet new perl uses a lot of these ideas, but not sure it can equal it. REBOL appears to have been designed.

      A lot of next generation ideas in it and *small* binary, tiny apps, many many builtin datatypes, compression, encryption, interesting graphical hierarchy. I don't need tons of imports or includes.... and no libraries to lose on the download.

  4. Re:Homework by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    you bought an album?

  5. Re:C: A Dead Language? by Mortice · · Score: 1

    And what's this about Perl being 'retired'? There are plenty of websites using CGI with perl code out there, not least Everything2 [everything2.com]. If you're going to present an 'argument', at least research your illustrations.

  6. Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! REBOL! I like how they neglect to mention that that 7k source compiles up to 2+ megs, plus runs slower than a Java crapplet on a 486 over a 14.4k connection!

    C# will own all your asses, Slashd0rx!

    .

  7. Aha! by ajuda · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can code a full blown GUI Instant Messenger in less than 100 bytes! apt-get install gaim. But seriously, if you can fit that much information in 7kb, hasn't someone already had to basially write the messenger first?

    They seem to be able to write such a small executable by building libraries especially for this project. Is anyone else thinking that a similar projet in C by them would have the following line: #include <guiMessenger.h>

    1. Re:Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      But that is the whole point!
      REBOL is an *internet language*. For example, you can't write a graphics application with it (until now...). But if you want to write a fully featured GUI NewsReader, an Email Client, an IM or anything related to Internet or other simpler stuff (like a calculator, a simple word processor etc), then you can do it easily, because REBOL supports all these protocols internally!
      So, as C has a printf() and a uint32 for example, REBOL has an email DataType! It has a NewsReader DataType etc!
      Each language is good for some things and not so good for others. REBOL is the absolute Internet language.

    2. Re:Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Perl and Python have mail and news datatypes, too. And they are free and open source.

    3. Re:Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me this loks like a great learning language. One of the things that people always complain about when learning programming is that they can't do anything useful in th early stages. With rebol, even learners could start playing with making their own apps.

    4. Re:Aha! by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 2

      Most of the networking libraries and stuff are already built in to the core. It's pretty damn small - something like 300k, with GUI support (widgets, etc). The biggest thing holding us back from having deployed this for a client is that there was no Mac GUi support when we checked (6 months ago or so). I think it's there now.

      That's what's a bit misleading about this - 44 platforms, but not all have GUI support, which is where I'd think the big win would be. If I want to simply script stuff on multiple platforms and one set of code I can use Perl (although it's not 300k!)

    5. Re:Aha! by znu · · Score: 2

      There's a Mac OS version now, but the OS X version is "Pending". That's a little annoying. Still, maybe I'll plat around with the core stuff.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    6. Re:Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, no it is actually written more or less from scratch. It is hard to understand coming from the C world, but just imagine all the functions and datatypes fitting together really well, along with many to the point functions. Example...

      forever [ print read join http:// ask "http://" ]

      Basically this is a one line web browser, not very exciting, but gives you a good introduction. Here is a description of how each word works:

      "forever" takes one argument in blocks [], similar to C braces or parentheses. It performs infinite loop.

      "print" takes an argument of any type, and prints it.

      "read" takes an argument of file or url, fetching it, and returning the contents.

      "join" takes two arguments of anytype and merges them together.

      "ask" takes a question of type series (basically any array, a string in this case) and returns the users responce.

      With a few more lines I could add error checking, or a graphical interface, or tag removal. By 100 lines or so, I could probably have clickable links, popup images, navigation buttons, and even a history dropdown. All this while maintaining readable source, it's a pretty amazing language.

      --Ryan Cole

      JARP (Just Another REBOL Programmer)

    7. Re:Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is ignorant.

      They don't have any specialized libraries. Why don't you look at the platform before spewing?

  8. Bold claims by LowneWulf · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Hmmmm, that's some pretty bold claims they make... considering I've never heard of them or their products before...

    Has anyone actually USED this that can elaborate on its effectiveness?

    1. Re:Bold claims by PlaysWithMatches · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've used REBOL quite a bit, and I'll say one thing up front: this is not going to be a Microsoft killer, or a .Net killer, or whatever. But REBOL is very good at what it does, which is offer a high-level interface to web, e-mail, etc. scripting. The language is pretty nice once you get into it. But for 99% of my scripting, I still use Perl. Will that change because of REBOL? I doubt it.

      Nice toy anyway, though.

      --

      Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
    2. Re:Bold claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. I can usually understand why someones post is listed as a troll. But why is this post listed as flamebait?

    3. Re:Bold claims by drnomad · · Score: 2
      I thought about this as well. In my perception, the success of the Rebol concept depends on two basic developments:

      1. Open availability, through independance of the software maker

      2. Structure and discipline concepts in order to avoid a mess.


      Although (point 1), there is a group developing Rebol as open source (OSCAR), the last time I checked, there was still no source code available. So I started my own implementation, btw absolutely not available yet because I don't have that much to offer right now.


      Rebol's best idea is the distributed computing model. They actually state that the good ol' webbrowser is a load of crap, and basically unsuitable for the things we want to do. They have a point there, because as a prof web developer, I can't believe the efforts I have to make, just to create something simple. IMHO a web browser is only suitable for text and images. I see the plugins merely as patches, fixing the shortcomings of the browser.


      So Rebol says - the browser 's gotta go, and we'll introduce a new internet application environment; a successor to the webbrowser.


      Besides that, Rebol is a very good language for scientific research in the investigation of polymorphical algorithms; ie an algorithm is an idea, and code is an implementation of this idea. The keyword reprogramming feature of Rebol gives flexible tools to understand the idea of an algortihm better, perhaps that one implementation could serve multiple uses. This is ofcourse not the same as a reusable object, I'm talking about a reusable algorithm.


      Still, I think Rebol is kinda cool!

    4. Re:Bold claims by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well,

      Rebol is in the news for about two years now ...

      It was mentined in BYTE magazine adn Dr. Jobbs, years ago.

      Its your fault if you have not heared ybout it not theirs ...

      I only did not use it because the language is YANS language. (Yet Another New Syntax).

      The same results would have been possible with calling the object creation operator: new, like in C++/JAVA/Smaltalk and other languages. They name it "make".

      And that goes on ....

      OTOH nice inventions (but also not realy necessary) like variabel access of objects via the slash (like in ordinary unix path/file names).

      Instead the C++/JAVA style for accessing account.balance they use account/balance.

      Rebol gives you first class citizens for all kinds of web and natural datatypes, like times (10:55 is just a time object), dates (2001-10-28 is a literal for a date object). Basicly all net protocolls are supported like in curl.

      Well, as I said: unfortunatly they invented yet another damn syntax ... I would have loved to have this either in C++ or in JAVA integrated :-)

      Regards,
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Bold claims by bot-man · · Score: 1

      Yep. It took perl 10 years and at birth it was an ugly child, but these children have a way of growing up. Look at your own beast as an example. Who would have thought?

  9. oh goody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like rubies 15 minutes of fame as the script language of unemployed trendy open source developers living with mommy becuase they never got a degree is up.

    Welcome REBOL, enjoy your next 15 minutes of fame as the trendiest scripting language around.

    Haha time for you losers to switch pet languages again, and geez what are you bandwagon jumping trendoids gonna do with all those old perl, python and ruby books?

    1. Re:oh goody! by MaggieL · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that REBOL fame didn't even last for 15 minutes the last time around. I guess it still has time on the clock.

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
    2. Re:oh goody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be interested in some sex? Someone of your obvious beauty surely must be taken already?

    3. Re:oh goody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gahahahhahaa....

      oh man....

      don't be mean...

      bweh heh hehe heheh bwa bwa BWAHAHAHHAHHA!

      where did you get that picture??

    4. Re:oh goody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that chick may not be much to look at but she'll kick your ass at programming, check out her resume.

    5. Re:oh goody! by MaggieL · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Maybe. Some sex is interesting, some isn't.

      Where's *your* picture? :-)

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
    6. Re:oh goody! by MaggieL · · Score: 1
      Programming?

      Oh, yeah...this topic is about programming, isn't it? If young master AC upthread wants eyecandy he's on the wrong site. I'd recommend spankoff.com

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
  10. dialects? by TheMMaster · · Score: 1

    From the system side, we will add several new "dialect" engines for 3D graphics, inferencing ("AI"), additional network protocols, advanced sound synthesis, and more.

    Call me cynical but IMHO claiming to make a 44 platform language and then creating "dialects" is shooting yourself in the foot while running a marathon with microsoft, the 1 thing they could really win on is FULL platform independece, this is NOT platform independence

    he, next thing we'll see is that you'll have to run the windows version of the client to play online directX games in WINE(X) ;-)

    --
    Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
  11. Re:Ha! To You! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Rebol is an interpreted language, it does not compile into anything. 7 KB will always be 7 KB.
    All you need is the 800 KB runtime REBOL library, which is the same for ALL your Rebol applications. This is why REBOL will own your Java and C# crap. Because all its apps are SO SMALL. When the executable Internet, that Microsoft wants to deploy, will come, the C# applications will load slowly from your DSL modem, as they will be several MBs for let's say, a graphics manipulation app. But with REBOL, 7 KB will always be 7 KB ! The REBOL apps will download and run even from a 33.6 kbps modem *instantly*. Because you only download their small source code and interpret them on the fly.

  12. You're know you're in trouble when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...the Ruby community is twice as big as yours.

    Rebol is a day late and a dollar short, beside having yucky syntax that deviates from the C-family in far too many places with no good reason.

    1. Re:You're know you're in trouble when... by cyberlync · · Score: 1


      I am not a big rebol fan, but claiming the it is crap becuase it deviates from C syntax is just stupid. C-family syntax is probably the worst syntax ever devised for a production language (production guys, brainf**k doesn't count). Like many of the unwashed open source masses (of which I am one) you believe that just becuase it is popular it must be the best choice. Well, I have never known a mob to make the best choice in anything, and the popularity of C just proves my point. I my opinion C syntax is nearly unreadable and horrible to maintain. It is a writers language not a readers, so it is terse and cryptic. This makes it really fast to type the code but going back and reading it six months later is a nightmare. There are alot better languages out there, my personal favorite is Ada95, but there are quite a few others.


      I realize that there are quite a few coders out there who will probably respond with flames to this. I only ask that you objectivly evaluate some of the other syntaxes before flaming me here. You may just be suprised at the power some of these languages bring in the area of readability and maintainability. Also remember that writing the code is probably the shortest aspect of its entire life cycle, and therefore targeting that aspect in langauge design or in the choosing a langauge for a project is probably not a good choice.

      --
      I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
    2. Re:You're know you're in trouble when... by superflex · · Score: 1
      hype yo. any university soft.eng. prof. will tell you that maintenance is by far the largest part of the software life cycle, in terms of both time and $$$. readability and maintainability (which in some ways are pretty much the same thing).

      however, I would personally choose a language based on the problem at hand before I chose it based on syntax.

      --
      sigs are for suckers
  13. big deal by mj6798 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    High level scripting languages are a dime a dozen. Systems like expectk and wxPython give you similar ease of programming. If you like something more Lisp-ish, there are various Scheme systems with built-in GUIs. The main thing that distinguishes Rebol is that you can't get an open source implementation of it and that it has a much smaller user community.

    As for "going against .NET", big efforts like that are not about technology, they are about marketing and people. And they are also about the long-term availability and tools support that a large company like Microsoft (or Sun, in the case of Java) brings to the table.

    But even technologically, it is an error to confuse a scripting language with a system like .NET or Java. Yes, Rebol, Python, and Perl are much simpler to program than .NET or Java. Yes, they run a few important things somewhat faster. But .NET and Java are natively compiled, fast, general-purpose programming environments with static type checking and large libraries (written in Java itself in the case of Java), and that just makes them much more useful for large-real world problems. You see, another misconception is that the easier you make programming in a language, the more useful it is in real-world applications.

    1. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But .NET and Java are natively compiled, fast

      You said Java and fast in the same sentence. That is incorrect.

    2. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh ? that shows Java to be the 5th fastest language in the group. much faster than Perl. what point were you trying to make ?

    3. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you elaborate on the Lisp-ish options with GUI's that you claim are available.

      Yes, Rebol is not open source, but they "hope" one day to release the code "when Rebol has had the time to take hold". Reminds me of the same (annoying) situation with Blender ...

    4. Re:big deal by majcher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, Rebol, Python, and Perl are much simpler to program than .NET or Java. Yes, they run a few important things somewhat faster. But .NET and Java are natively compiled, fast,...

      I don't know about .NET, but Java is compiled into bytecode, which is run on a natively compiled byetcode interpreter. Just like Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. are. This has been a major piece of Java FUD for the longest time - it pretends to be a compiled language, because it doesn't want to be seen as "just another scripting language". As for the libraries and penetration available for Java, do you not think that if Sun had developed and spend untold millions marketing Perl or Python that they would not be in the same position? As a language, Java lacks in many areas - it's just the most popular kid on the block because it's dad happens to be rich.

    5. Re:big deal by smallpaul · · Score: 2

      But even technologically, it is an error to confuse a scripting language with a system like .NET or Java.

      .NET and Java are not even in the same class. One is a language. The other is a marketing buzzword that covers a variety of technologies. Be more precise. What part of .NET are you talking about?

      Yes, Rebol, Python, and Perl are much simpler to program than .NET or Java. Yes, they run a few important things somewhat faster. But .NET and Java are natively compiled, fast,

      In general, Java is bytecompiled, just as most scripting languages are. Sometimes Java can be JIT-ted to native code. Sometimes scripting languages can be JIT-ted to native code.

      general-purpose programming environments with static type checking and large libraries (written in Java itself in the case of Java)

      Java's library is not larger than CPAN and certainly is not larger than Jython's. The scripting languages originated the idea of large standard libraries. Python is known as the "batteries included" language. Java and C# (.NET is not a language) are relative johnny-come-latelies.

      and that just makes them much more useful for large-real world problems. You see, another misconception is that the easier you make programming in a language, the more useful it is in real-world applications.

      It isn't just about ease. Dynamically typed programming languages allow you to radically decrease your line count and all else being equal that reduces your original development cost and your maintenance costs. We could argue whether "all else is equal" but I think rather that I'll point you to some evidence that significant systems can be created in dynamically typed programming languages. Python case study, Using Lisp to Beat your Competition, Smalltalk in the Large

    6. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually java, compiled JIT, is place #9 in the CPU ranking, slower than all other major compiled languages. If you add the memory multiplier, which is a more realistic measurement than CPU time alone, java falls to place #16, well below perl, python and ruby (in memory ranking alone, java is almost at the complete bottom). Mind you, this is for non-graphical applications. You can imagine how java would rank for swing stuff.

    7. Re:big deal by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      It isn't just about ease. Dynamically typed programming languages allow you to radically decrease your line count and all else being equal that reduces your original development cost and your maintenance costs. We could argue whether "all else is equal" but I think rather that I'll point you to some evidence that significant systems can be created in dynamically typed programming languages. Python case study [lyra.org], Using Lisp to Beat your Competition [slashdot.org], Smalltalk in the Large [bytesmiths.com]

      I have nearly 20 years of experience with Lisp and I can tell you that it doesn't live up to the hype. For large, multi-programmer projects, the mix of static and dynamic features Java offers works much better.

      You don't have to look much further than the few open source projects based on Lisp and Smalltalk. GNU Emacs is very slow at releasing new versions and elisp packages are a mess; jedit is getting close to similar functionality after only a few years in existence. The Squeak implementation of Smalltalk is great, but it, too, has turned into a complex and largely undocumented mess. Languages like Smalltalk, Python, and Lisp are great for smaller projects and for single programmer projects.

      In general, Java is bytecompiled, just as most scripting languages are. Sometimes Java can be JIT-ted to native code. Sometimes scripting languages can be JIT-ted to native code.

      That's a mischaracterization. With the major Java implementations (Sun, IBM, Intel), Java is always JITted into efficient native code, and the Java byte-code is well-suited to that. None of the major scripting languages (Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby) have a widely-used JIT, and nobody has ever demonstrated a native code compiler for those languages that results in performance anywhere near native code. CMU CommonLisp, arguably one of the best compilers for dynamic languages, does very poorly without type declarations.

    8. Re:big deal by rfsayre · · Score: 2

      what's the big deal with these compiled/interpreted arguments? Can't you compile java source if you want, no JVM required? Isn't it also true that most performance problems are located in a very small portion of the code, but it's extremely difficult to figure out where (ahead of time)? So why not just write it all in java and then mix 'n' match interpreted java, compiled java, FORTRAN, Guile, or whatever?

    9. Re:big deal by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      NET and Java are not even in the same class. One is a language. The other is a marketing buzzword that covers a variety of technologies. Be more precise. What part of .NET are you talking about?

      Java is a marketing buzzword that covers a variety of technologies. Quoting http://java.sun.com/java2/whatis/:

      The JavaTM platform is based on the power of networks and the idea that the same software should run on many different kinds of computers, consumer gadgets, and other devices. Since its initial commercial release in 1995, Java technology has grown in popularity and usage because of its true portability. The Java platform allows you to run the same Java application on lots of different kinds of computers.

      [...]The idea is simple: Java technology-based software can work just about everywhere. Java technology components don't care what kind of computer, phone, TV, or operating system they run on. They just work, on any kind of compatible device that supports the Java platform.

      Notice how they don't say "Java is a language..."?

      In the Java 1.0 days there were essentially three things referred to as Java: the JVM, the language, and the standard library. Oh, and maybe something about delivery of applets through sandboxed bytecode. Four things Sun wanted you to think of for the term "Java". Now there are a zillion. Soon, there will be a zillion and fifty.

      OK, OK, those aren't at the same architectural level as the big three components. But "Java" has become increasingly vague, and don't think Sun isn't encouraging this. They want non-directed feelings of goodness associated with whatever's in their (proprietary) platform this week.

      If what people wanted from Java was just a language, in the traditional view of what a language is, gcj would have taken over the world by now.

    10. Re:big deal by Twylite · · Score: 2

      The main thing that distinguishes Rebol is a tiny footprint, and ground-up design for interaction in a networked environment.

      Technologically, you have no clue what .NET or Java are about. Java by virtue of syntax and documentation is probably the simplest of languages around, and both .NET and Java run as bytecode on interpretters.

      But most important, Java (and to some extent .NET) is significant for real-world enterprise applications because it defines specifications for interoperability. J2EE is not about providing programming libraries; it is about providing standards.

      Rebol falls flat on this count in the same way as every other programming language: you have to lock yourself into a vendor at API level, not at language level.

      --
      i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
    11. Re:big deal by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      .NET and Java are not even in the same class. One is a language. The other is a marketing buzzword that covers a variety of technologies. Be more precise. What part of .NET are you talking about?
      Java is as vague as .NET
    12. Re:big deal by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      Yes, you can compile Java reasonably well both with a batch compiler (like gcj or Jove) and with a JIT (like the Sun, IBM, and Intel runtimes). And you actually get good performance out of it.

      The nice thing about JITs is that you don't have to worry about figuring out what to optimize: the runtime does it for you, and it is doing a better and better job at it.

      Nobody has ever produced a compiler for Python or Perl that gave performance close to a good Java compiler. The situation with Lisp and Smalltalk is a bit more complex; there are good compilers for them, but getting good performance out of those usually ends up being more work than getting good performance out of Java.

    13. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      High level scripting languages are a dime a dozen. Systems like expectk and wxPython give you similar ease of programming. If you like something more Lisp-ish, there are various Scheme systems with built-in GUIs. The main thing that distinguishes Rebol is that you can't get an open source implementation of it and that it has a much smaller user community.

      But Rebol is a nice package. People want solutions, not perl/lisp/python with N libraries bundled with it. See Flash for example. Download the plugin, see it working. Rebol is the same everywhere and that's one thing javascript/java/flash etc. have been trying to achieve, a generic Internet platform but more programmable than plain HTML.

      After a couple of hours of examining, it seems to be a small, robust platform that is quite easy to understand and code with. And it's tcp/ip ready, has nice level of abstraction and lots of good stuff (e.g. graphics) bundled together. It's enough for a _lot_ of people interested in writing small Internet applications. I really hope Rebol goes popular. It has this funny kind of Amiga feeling, too. Fast, slick and small.

    14. Re:big deal by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I don't know about .NET, but Java is compiled into bytecode, which is run on a natively compiled byetcode interpreter.

      Moderators should stop modding posts tehy have no knowledge about .....

      JAVA is compiled on nearly all reasonable implementations into native code.

      During execution time, this is called jit (just in time) compiling.

      Most JAVA programs which are slow are simply BAD programmed.

      I bet if you take your favorite programming language I make a equal fast or even faster JAVA program.

      If you implement everything JAVA gives you in your own program(ing language), you are likely a lot slower.
      Regards,
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:big deal by ahde · · Score: 1

      jit (just in time) compilation is also known as "interpreted" at runtime. Just because it isn't plaintext interpretted by an already compiled userland process that is not abbreviated JRE doesn't change that. Theoretically, some optimization and error checking is done before hand (with javac) but it fails to deliver on performance in most practical applications.

  14. Licensing by Eloquence · · Score: 5, Informative
    The problem with REBOL, IIRC, is its license. The professional interpreter is commercially sold, which means that you have to license it even for distributing your apps, since REBOL does not generate executables. At least the standard version is free beer. But this probably makes it more expensive than VB, where you only pay for the platform once. So it can't compete on Win32, and without being OSS, it will hardly be able to compete on non-mainstream platforms.

    That's a real shame, because other than that, it is really quite impressive. They should think about a Transgaming-like business model, where users subscribe and the code becomes free when there are enough subscribers.

    1. Re:Licensing by Cheesy+Fool · · Score: 0

      Yeah, without the backing of the OSS community REBOL will never be a widely used language.

      --

      Hail to the king, baby!
    2. Re:Licensing by Zurk · · Score: 1

      thats not the only problem. its also a scripting language and has crude hacks like assigning EmailAddress as a datatype instead of a string. its more like a bash shell for the web rather than a full featured language.
      lack of a free run time interpreter kills it right off the bat tho.

  15. Re:Ha! To You! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Byte compiled apps are of comparible size to the source from whence they came. The bulk is always the runtime libraries.

  16. And I thought Lisp was ugly! by lkaos · · Score: 1

    All these friggin ['s and ]'s.... Everybodies got to be original.

    How is this any different from perl & tcl/tk? Couldn't the same be accomplished?

    Don't think it will ever take off if you ask me...

    --
    int func(int a);
    func((b += 3, b));
    1. Re:And I thought Lisp was ugly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      [ ] make more sense as I don't have to hit shift.

      There, I said it. I am actually that lazy.

    2. Re:And I thought Lisp was ugly! by burnetd · · Score: 1

      The number of platforms it will work on...

  17. Is it commercial-only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article sounded intriguing, and as I have a... fetish... for new programming languages, decided I'd try to download it and see what it was about only to see that most of the things on the "Dwonload" page were evaluation versions of commercial products.

    As much as I hate to say it, the only way I can see this platform succeeding is by making the entire platform free. Free-as-in-beer is fine.

    I just don't see too many people going in for a whole new programming platform that costs money to get started with. (No, I'm not rabidly free software, I just think that with Microsoft's domination, you can ONLY compete if you give away your product in the market today.)

    IMHO the main reason Java has succeeded as it has is because you can just download it. If Java were a pay-only platform, I believe you'd see it in a few high-end server apps and nowhere else. I predict the same future for REBOL unless they decide to open up the whole platform for anyone and everyone who wants to use it.

  18. Language Lockin problem by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There have been quite a few self-contained systems architecture solutions put out over the years (Java and Smalltalk come to mind), and this looks like another one. All of them meet a lot of resistance because they make you use a language that is not the favorite language of the 90% of developers out there who have a different favorite language.

    No matter what you think about Microsoft and its practices, the .NET strategy is more likely to attract a wide variety of developers because it allows them to use most any language they want. (.NET has an OS lockin problem, but the 90%/10% ratio is in MS's favor in that case).

    REBOL may be extremely cool; I'm going to have to take a look at the language spec. However, I don't think that any single language will ever take over the whole world.

    1. Re:Language Lockin problem by truckfighter_hank · · Score: 1

      It is possible to write code->java bytecode compilers for your favourite language, just look at the JPython efforts.

      With that said, lockin of any kind isn't a desirable situation.

    2. Re:Language Lockin problem by slaytanic+killer · · Score: 1

      Possible, but not optimal for languages like C/C++ where there are pointers. There is no real efficient way to represent them, even if you code them in Java bytecode.

    3. Re:Language Lockin problem by addaon · · Score: 1

      I want to use forth! Microsoft won't feed me! Yet another reason I am a grumpy programmer.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
  19. rebol kicks bootie by LazyDawg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it weren't for rebol I wouldn't have a 25 line script to grab the stock market closes every day from yahoo.com. If you want to get batches of web pages and parse them for useful information, use rebol. It rocks.

    If it were more widely accepted, rebol would make a really sweet web language, too, allowing more control over the interface, with less garbage in the page's source code.

    --
    "Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
    1. Re:rebol kicks bootie by FigWig · · Score: 2

      This could be accomplished in Perl with about the same number of lines. Any language can do this as long as proper libraries exist. The fact that it is built into the language is not an advantage, in fact it is a disadvantage because you have less flexibility and options.

      I'm sure rebol is nice and you can be productive in it, but it won't have anything that you can't do in another language.

      --
      Scuttlemonkey is a troll
    2. Re:rebol kicks bootie by LazyDawg · · Score: 2

      Great, but without libraries, using a ~900k executable, I can do an http interface, download a web page, parse it for content, then save that content to a file. Perl without libraries can't do that without worrying about the actual http protocol, meaning rebol saves people from having to reuse big blocks of code.

      For beginning users, this ease of use is important because it frees them to do more creative things, faster, and easier.

      Having an OpenRebol, however, would be very very nice, just for more advanced users who want to roll their own rebol or rebol like substance, with better features.

      --
      "Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
    3. Re:rebol kicks bootie by ikekrull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well, theres at least 800k of statically linked libraries right there.

      Without libraries, if you wanted to change or upgrade your HTTP component, you'd have to d/l another 900k executable, instead of using something nifty like the CPAN module.

      There really is nothing stopping somebody from compiling Perl, Python, Tcl or any other language and a bunch of it's essential libraries into a single 'executable' you could use to do exactly what the REBOL environment does.

      Its just not usually done, because most people using these tools recognize the benefits of being able to dynamically load libraries as needed, and add/upgrade/modify/swap them individually.

      This is not to say that REBOL doesn't do the job, since it obviously does for your purposes.

      However, I, like many others, would have to take issue with the idea that YAHASL (Yet Another Half Assed Scripting Language) is going to 'revolutionize the internet' in the same way that Java has completely failed to do.

      --
      I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
    4. Re:rebol kicks bootie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But: Can you read it ?

      Rebol can come very close to human language. Perl,, however..ackrkracklkrac

      Rebol is designed for users, II'd say. Something that was missing for long

    5. Re:rebol kicks bootie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 283824 Mär 24 2001 /usr/local/bin/rebol*

      Where are those 800kb ?

      As for your YAHASL comment: You are clueless.

      This language is done by one of the designers of one of the very best computer systems in history. Amiga.

      You guys are not only unknowing, worse, you are ignorant.

    6. Re:rebol kicks bootie by ikekrull · · Score: 2

      I was simply responding to the previous posters claim that he could do his trivial web-suck with 'only' 900k of executable.

      Your Amiga zealotry is amusing, but the idea that REBOL will be successful because it is the creation of one of the guys responsible for Amiga's success (we've seen a lot of that lately, haven't we) is about as valid as the idea that the BeOS would become wildly successful because it was the creation of one of the guys on the Apple Macintosh team, also one of the very best computer systems in history.

      --
      I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
    7. Re:rebol kicks bootie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is not that it will be hugely successful (99.9999% surely it won't), but as anyone who's studied the AmigaOS kernel can attest, Carl Sassenrath is a fucking genius. Therefore the odds are that the REBOL language itself won't be half-assed -- I would bet that technologically it's very sweet.

  20. If you thought C++ was a bad idea... by SumDeusExMachina · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...then REBOL is likely to give you nightmares! Good God, people, I have not seen any other language as bloated as this one! Not even Java can come close in the terms of the sheer amount of crap already included in this language!

    I mean, what happens if you don't happen to like the way that this thing handles TCP connections on your particular platform? You are basically screwed, as not only are underlying routines written in another language, but you don't even get to see the source! I'm shocked that Slashdot would even post such a thing here, considering that the closest analog that I can find to this is VB, and, honestly folks, we do not need more idiots of the using class writing their own AOL Instant Messanger or other crap like that that will probably kill the network I admin.

    --

    Is your company running tools written by ma
    1. Re:If you thought C++ was a bad idea... by drnomad · · Score: 2

      You are not screwed, you can load a dynamic linked library or shared object into the language and use the internal routines...

      You must provide de .dll or .so yourself then, maybe new TCP routines. If you then reprogram some keywords, perhaps you don't need to rewrite the application code which used the old TCP connections in Rebol.

    2. Re:If you thought C++ was a bad idea... by damiam · · Score: 1
      "I don't think athesists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" - George Bush

      When did Bush say that? Can you give us a link?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    3. Re:If you thought C++ was a bad idea... by Phantasiere · · Score: 1

      Try this one:

      http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.h tm l#bush

    4. Re:If you thought C++ was a bad idea... by Sir_Real · · Score: 2

      When did Bush say that? Can you give us a link?


      Because if you can link to it, it must be true...

  21. oh, no by krokodil · · Score: 1, Troll

    oh no! not another Perl!

    Seriously, people should be more careful advertizing such toy scripting languages. Some managers take their words for real and then force us, developers write serious systems using them. What about concurrency/synchronization? memory management? OO constructs? how efficient are byte manipulations? Does tail recusion eats up stack? It is nice to have 'ftp' as language construct but that does not make it 'Internet' developement language.

    1. Re:oh, no by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do not equate Perl with toy scripting languages, lest the editors and myself bring forth the pain upon your ass with the quickness and loud report.

      Python, however, is fair game :) Not to mention Ruby, which is the wet dream of a thousand Rumbaugh groupies.

      [COME ON!! HIT ME WITH THE -1 TROLL!!!]

    2. Re:oh, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er.. rebol is not a toy scripting language. It is GC'd, properly tail recursive, has the usual threading primitives, and supports OO programming (is not limited to it, though).

      REBOL is actually a typed lisp variant a bit like dylan, with very human-friendly syntax. It's more like FORTH at a low level, but you don't typically get that low...

  22. 7KB is nice... by tcc · · Score: 1

    Especially considering I've just downloaded the new version of messenger and it weighted 1.6 megs... MSN is going the same path that ICQ went to... small efficient, does the job, to getting bloated, bigger downloads and 3/4 of the stuff you'll NEVER use, all this without giving you the option to have a simple light-memory-usage solution still available (forcing you to go to alternatives or archives sites to download older clients, which eventually will become incompatible with a newer build that will change the protocol.

    I'll support anything that is not following that path. Things don't have to be BIG to be good, (of course I am talking only software here :) ).

    On another note, the new .NET version of messenger has UGLY icons, man, the :) is scary, and you even have one smiley guy on crack (try :-| )

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    1. Re:7KB is nice... by xtremex · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Windows user, so the Version of ICQ and AIM I use are aLOT smaler in size. I use GAIM and LICQ, which are products for Linux, which are both excellent

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
  23. Use OpenRebol instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Oh yeah - it does not exist. Rebol is proprietary, so why would anyone want to use it?

    1. Re:Use OpenRebol instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, there's the OSCAR project which wants to create an open REBOL interpreter. Don't think they will ever come anywhere near it though.

  24. Amazing.... by Andreas(R) · · Score: 1

    REBOL has done some real innovation here. Great work! To me, it seems like it is easier to create cool apps (applets) for the web in no-time.

    Just too bad I have to learn "yet another programming language" ...

  25. Great, rexactly what we need. by loraksus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Another fucking messenger. I have
    - icq
    - aim
    - msn
    - ym
    on my box right now.
    Though I see the point. There should be no reason an instant messaging system be over one meg. Lets be honest, you're sending small bits of data between two boxes across the net.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    1. Re:Great, rexactly what we need. by Cheesy+Fool · · Score: 0

      everybuddy and gaim both support multiple protocols within one program.

      --

      Hail to the king, baby!
    2. Re:Great, rexactly what we need. by rbeattie · · Score: 1


      This is waaaaay off topic, but if you weren't just exagerating, you need to download the trillian IM client. I use it now for my accounts on all those above plus IRC. I'm really happy with it (it's not as flaky as Jabber).

      http://www.trillian.cc

      -Russ

      --
      Me
    3. Re:Great, rexactly what we need. by xtremex · · Score: 1

      Trillian is Windows only! I'm assuming 90% of people on /. are Linux users, so you should specify which platform the program runs on. Linux has both Jabber and Everybuddy

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
  26. another Perl? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    You're right, it's _not_ another Perl. REBOL code is actually _readable_ by human beings, and consistent in syntax. Too bad about the license, though. *shrug*

    1. Re:another Perl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perl is readable once you've taken the time to study the language. Dare read 'Programming Perl'.

  27. (CEO) talks about (a new product) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    (our product) is a powerful new software technology by (our company) that is proprietary, commercial, and not Open Source, but will compete with Microsoft.

    We only have 10 employees, and no advertising budget, so with the collapse of the dot-com hype machine I need a new way to generate press to show to venture capital companies.

  28. Carl Sassenrath is a hero to us Amiga users. by Mentifex · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Although my Rebol page on GeoCities suddenly and inexplicably disappeared with all the other Mentifex AI files on Wed.6.JUN.2001, as a first, last and always Amiga user I was proud to include Rebol as a candidate AI language before I acquired a SourceForge AI project and pared own the list of AI languages to the fifteen being used in SourceForge AI projects.

    Carl Sassenrath was a driving force behind the development of the 1985 Amiga 1000 computer that was way ahead of its time, and which served as the development platform for the initial AI Mind in Amiga ARexx. (Nanomagazine describes how an initially Amiga-platform "PD AI" project got kicked off freshmeat.net when the AI moved to the Microsoft Windows environment.)

    If Carl Sassenrath can work on REBOL against all odds, then we lesser lights take inspiration from him to work on public-domain Artificial Minds.

    1. Re:Carl Sassenrath is a hero to us Amiga users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a kook, we all know you are a kook, and you have no real concept of how an artificial mind should be constructed.

    2. Re:Carl Sassenrath is a hero to us Amiga users. by geomcbay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We really need a SPAM moderation, perhaps with a -2 attached to it. I'm really fucking sick of seeing your god-damn ads for your Artificial Minds project. You try to link the stupid thing to any and every topic posted to Slashdot.

      After the second such post you're just alienating Slashdot readers that might otherwise have been interested in your project.

      For those who don't know what I'm talking about, look at Mentifex's user info:

      http://slashdot.org/~Mentifex/

      Click some of the links...Notice how every post he's made is an ad for his project, usually completely off-topic for the Slashdot article, but linked in with silly connections (ie. in an XP related post 'Artificial Minds (link included) will not use XP!').

      Anyway, to keep THIS post somewhat on-topic, REBOL is a fairly nice language but it will never catch on with the silly greedy-licencing model they have. When is the last time a language that you had to pay royalties to use caught on? (Hint: Never).

    3. Re:Carl Sassenrath is a hero to us Amiga users. by Broccolist · · Score: 1
      You're right, that guy is pretty funny. But I think he's just a creative troll. I can't imagine someone being convinced that his little app (is that Javascript?) will take over the world. He is just parodying loud-mouthed AI fools like Kurzweil.

      And to be slightly on topic, I don't know much about Rebol but I love the name "Carl Sassenrath". It conjures up the image of a bearded genius scientist type :).

    4. Re:Carl Sassenrath is a hero to us Amiga users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fun thing is, he's been bandying about the project on various Usenet groups for the last decade...

  29. beating MS is not... by jptxs · · Score: 1

    ...about small development cycles and source files. If that was all it took, there a dozen much more established laguages and tools which should have ousted them long, long ago. It'll take more than YAP to beat the beast....

    --
    we speak the way we breathe --Fugazi
  30. Re:C: A Dead Language? by MaggieL · · Score: 1

    This is obvious fiction. Nobody ever had that much fun with VB.

    --
    -=Maggie Leber=-
  31. what does the interview say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried reading it, but got a parse error on the first question. Can someone please try to translate this into something resembling English? TIA: Which role Rebol/IOS will play for XNet, the new, "executable" Internet, which analysts say that it is a revolution that has already started?

  32. Ever thought by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 1
    (ever thought that you could write a full blown GUI Instant Messenger in only 7 KB of source code?)


    Ever use Delphi? Anyways, I would hardly call that "full blown".

    1. Re:Ever thought by burnetd · · Score: 1

      I've never tried Delphi, can you point me towards the versions for these OS's please...

      Amiga V2.x/3.x
      Apple OS9
      Apple OSX
      BeOS R5 (x86 and PPC)
      BSDi
      Free BSD
      NetBSD
      OpenBSD
      HP-UX
      AIX
      SCO Open server
      IRIX
      Solaris

      Taken from the platform list for REBOL/View

    2. Re:Ever thought by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 1

      If cross-platform development is your goal, I bet you could write the same thing in about the same amount of Java code, too.

  33. Re:Homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    P2P file sharing" is for the unr33t.

    Real kids get full albums tarred that are ripped at 192kbps min and release 2 weeks before it gets to stores off of t3+ ftps.

    -The only reason a release would be tarred was if it was being shared by bots on irc: ie for 12 yr old faggots that probably are too stupid to find another program now that napster died. Also, T3 is slow as shit, again for losers who cant get on a real site.

    If they can kill file sharing it will be good, all the lamers will have to go back to buying multimedia and the real kids can get all the latest shit unharrassed.

    -"Real kids" what the fuck is this. You are a real kid, and a real flamer as well. And what is the "latest shit" to you is something that most people peeped weeks ago.

    P.S. even people who like that genre of music agree daft punk has no talent and only sells records thanks to over produced videos get played constantly on mtv.

    -Their videos are shit, and they are widely recognized as one of the founders of the french style of filtered house. They don't sell as many records as other widely known electronic artists either.

    Dude Taco lives in fricken Wisconsin or something, don't take his advice on what groups are hot.

    -Dont take this guys advice either.

  34. Re:C: A Dead Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as an event fsckin' long overdue --- both of them --- 'bouts time the Darwin Awards caught up with the howling-stray-dog-on-sterno weenie crowd.

  35. Re:Homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sup girl, don't you have some windows games to fxp around or something about now.

  36. A meta-circular view of a bovine backside by mickwd · · Score: 5, Funny

    REBOL might be fantastic for all I know. But when I hear some-one say that something "was designed from a meta-circular view of language semantics" that sounds like the perfect description of bullshit to me.

    1. Re:A meta-circular view of a bovine backside by alienmole · · Score: 5, Informative
      was designed from a meta-circular view of language semantics

      He didn't just make that term up, if that's what you're thinking. A "metacircular" language is a language which is implemented in itself. The most common example of this is Lisp - in fact, the very first computer language interpreter ever was a Lisp interpreter, written in a Lisp-like language as something of a mathematical exercise, by John McCarthy around 1958. This approach has proved very powerful, and some good language implementations have been written this way.

      The term is probably most famously used in SICP, in a section entitled The Metacircular Evaluator.

      Of course, none of this implies that REBOL is any good, but the fact that Sassenrath is aware of such things is probably a good sign. If you read the rest of the paragraph after the term "meta-circular", you'll see that he is actually referring to a relevant aspect of REBOL, namely that the GUI system is implemented in a dialect of REBOL. So it isn't quite as bad as if he'd said that the language runs on free tachyon energy...

    2. Re:A meta-circular view of a bovine backside by scrytch · · Score: 2

      A "metacircular" language is a language which is implemented in itself.

      Huh. In the compiler world, that's called bootstraping. Face it, they really just want you to ooh and ahh over the complex sounds of "meta-circular view of language semantics" without really understanding it. If the fact that the language is bootstraped is such a selling point, they could have simply said "implemented in REBOL".

      I guess someone had to take Scriptics's place as the peddler of hype over technical merit.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    3. Re:A meta-circular view of a bovine backside by alienmole · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't think I did a good job of explaining what "metacircular" usually implies. There's a little more to it than simply bootstrapping. Certainly any metacircular language has to be bootstrapped at some level, but that's an implementation detail that has little to do with the nature of the language being implemented.

      In interpreted languages that allow procedures to be treated as data values, it is very easy to write an interpreter for those languages in the language itself, because the language has features that make it easy to write code that manipulates other code, evaluate expressions, and so on. The same is not true for writing a language like, say, C, since C itself doesn't contain any particular features oriented towards such tasks. Writing a C compiler in C has to be done "the hard way". Writing a Lisp interpreter in Lisp is trivial by comparison.

      Saying that a language is capable of implementing itself in a metacircular fashion implies that the language has capabilities which go beyond those in traditional languages like C, Basic, or Java, none of which can really be said to be metacircular. An important implication is the ability of a language to operate on its own code at runtime, which is why metacircular languages usually support higher order functions. Metacircular languages are also good at implementing other languages with minimum effort.

      Smalltalk is another language with metacircular features. For something more unusual, here's a brief mention of an implementation of Postscript in Postscript. I picked this link because it contains some clues to some of what a metacircular interpreter can buy you; I'm not sure I can explain it any better without getting into code samples in Scheme, and SICP does that better than I could.

      Based on Sassenrath's description, it sounds as though REBOL has some features which can validly be described as metacircular. If he's trying to dazzle people with his language, he's at least doing so in a way which communicates something meaningful to those familiar with the terminology, as opposed to making completely gratuitous claims.

    4. Re:A meta-circular view of a bovine backside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for showing us your utter ignorance. There is not a wiff of bullshit in "meta-circular view of language semantics." You just haven't a clue what you're talking about.

      Geez... try educating yourself before spewing.

  37. A want a new logo for the developers section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Ballmer's sweaty armpits ! Yes !

  38. Re:god damn [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I wouldn't take anything said on [natvan.com] seriously. if you look at the main page [natvan.com], it seems to be some neo nazi/racist site.

  39. Re:god damn [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so?

  40. Any guesses? by teyu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...we have a partnership that will be putting REBOL onto 30 million desktops within the next few months."

    I just had images of millions of AOL cd's dance through my head. With the types of services this provides and their claims to be a .NET alternative, who else could they be partnering up with?

    1. Re:Any guesses? by solo240 · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually, they released a press statement yesterday. They will be teaming up with StreamCast (formerly MusicCity) to bring us Morpheus 2.0. The press release is over here.

  41. Get Trillian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's compatible with all of those IM programs, plus it also has an IRC connection, all in one small & neat package. Skinnable too!

  42. Re:C: A Dead Language? by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

    It is indeed a troll but the funny thing is it suspiciously sounds like a VB programming book from 1997 I saw. Microsoft couldn't pay for better marketing. The opening chapter deals with what a great guy Bill Gates is and how, now that Microsoft has blessed us with Visual Basic, all of the tedium associated with programming simply vanishes.

    There's even a little remark in there (veiled threat is more like it) about how, if you're a traditional C programmer, you won't enjoy the book and will hate VB, but you'd better read it anyway because you still want to have a job. It's classic stuff.

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
  43. Re:C: A Dead Language? by AnonymousCowheard · · Score: 0

    Damn you're good. Exlpained it like it was just yesterday; like you're still using those punch cards. You should write a book, you explained C's strengths so well. You know what they say about good teachers: "Those who can't make it in the real world get jobs in government schols and teach children K-3rd."

    --

    But I'm sure you already Gnu that.
  44. Re:Homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at these stupid IRC niggers, fighting over who can steal more music faster. This is why we need things like the SSSCA.

  45. Looks like JNLP.. by mergatoriod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, so I downloaded the viewer 362K (so far so good..)

    Run the installer, took a few seconds (great!)

    Took a look at the demos, only a few seconds to download and view (quick!), and then I quickly lost interest. The demos are rubbish!

    Visited some of the other Rebol enabled sites, the demos did not get any better!

    I just don't see anybody wanting to write any serious applications for this platform. JNLP the Java web application launching protocol has much better demo applications available. http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart

    Show me a serious application such as a paint program or a game and i'll take this seriously otherwise forget it!

    1. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At which demos have you looked? There's tetris, a minesweeper clone, and a paint program. I've also seen an RPG on one of the rebsites.

    2. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I downloaded Rebol, and it worked. Didn't take long to download.

      I downloaded the Java Web Start, too a long time to..5.6 megs. Oh and what is that EXE there. Too bad it only runs on Solaris, Linux and Windows. My lowly Mac just isn't cool enough to run it.

      You can't compare the two.

    3. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by rbeattie · · Score: 1


      Java and Java Web Start are a long way from this thing. I mean Rebol's a 300k download for starters - even with all the bells and whistles it's less than a meg. Compare that with the 20meg download for Jdk1.3. And Rebol seems to work well over a slow connection. I was just playing with the demo apps and they download really quickly and run fast with little delay... unlike applets.

      But along the Java line of thought, does this remind you of the Marimba stuff from circa 1996? Remember Bongo and Castanet and how you were able to write your own custom Java-ish apps that would be internet updateable? Rebol is obviously a much better implementation, but it's very similar in idea. The control panels are similar, the demo apps are similar...

      I'm not ready to give up Java yet, especially for this wacky language that has little to no support (30 million upcoming clients or no), but after playing with it, I can see why Rebol's pretty cool.

      -Russ

      --
      Me
    4. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS X 10.1 ships with Java Web Start.

    5. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't run any of the demos - I could send you a snapshot of my windows machine running the stock rebol view with the demos - there's at least 4~5 games on there.

      instant messager looked pretty cool - maybe serious, the skin selector looked pretty cool. There were also some image manipulation demos I saw that looked pretty cool. And the desktop itself looked relatively serious - I've never seen a Java desktop.

    6. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by |_uke · · Score: 1

      Actually... what they consider to be a desktop in Rebol has already been implemented in java... Java Web Start actually has a simular feature.

      --
      Luke
    7. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by KyleCordes · · Score: 2

      To run java apps, you don't need the (rather large) JDK, just the JRE, which is smaller.

      Java Web Start does appear to be a new (and nicely implementated) instance of the same idea that Marimba had working in 1996, though.

    8. Re:Looks like JNLP.. by mergatoriod · · Score: 1

      Oh come on! Those games are not very good, take a look at http://www.gamehouse.com for some real web game (services??). I didn't spot the paint program so I can't comment on it. The jump start paint demo was quite impressive and that is years old.

  46. Royalties? Try 10% of all company revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we looked at it. The idea is amazing, the execution is horribly flawed. 10% of my total revenue to sell anything built with REBOL? Guess again, kids.

    The lockups didn't thrill me, either. This is one of those amazing ideas that could be immensly profitable - except they don't know what they're doing.

    Guess I'll wait for the 30 million disks... oh, wait, you mean someone stole your ideas and proceeded without you? Ouch. Guess it's back to the day job, kids.

    Programmers make the *worst* CEOs, period. Unless their dads are high-powered lawyers... like Bill.

    1. Re:Royalties? Try 10% of all company revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what should they do?

  47. Re:Homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discovery sucks even worse. Daft Punk fuckin blows. Commander Cockhole only likes it cuase the videos are anime. Ooooh wow *drool* look at the japanese cartoon, me like japanese cartoon, daft punk have japanese cartoon in video, me like daft punk, ah duh *drool*

    It's highly gay. Only some smelly french men with rotten teeth could like that crap. well or commander cockhole.

  48. Lisp-ish option with GUI by alienmole · · Score: 2
    Could you elaborate on the Lisp-ish options with GUI's that you claim are available.

    Check out DrScheme from the PLT group. It's "an interactive, integrated, graphical programming environment for the Scheme programming language". It's cross-platform, released under the GPL, and includes cross-platform GUI support (*nix & Windows), a comprehensive help system, a bunch of useful libraries for graphics, Internet, COM access on Windows, etc., as well as some useful applications like a web server, web browser, Gtk interface, a graphical IMAP mail client, and some graphical games.

    The underlying Scheme implementation, known as MzScheme, includes a fast interpreter as well as a compiler that can compile to bytecode or native code.

    1. Re:Lisp-ish option with GUI by RevAaron · · Score: 2
      STk is another nice one. Not as popular as DrScheme, but has a really nice integration with Tk. Comes with a class browser, an editor, html browser, and a GUI builder.

      If only the common lisp world had something to accessible and free.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  49. Who cares. by Ogerman · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Why would any Slashdotter care about a proprietary language and its proprietary compiler that is far inferior to Perl? Point us to an informative guide to educating newbies on a real scripting language at least. Or if there's no news to post, don't post it.

    1. Re:Who cares. by FFFish · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Why would any Slashdotter care about a proprietary language and its proprietary compiler that is far inferior to Perl?"

      Hey, you misspelt "Python."

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  50. Reminds me of AMOS by p0werup · · Score: 1

    A sort of basic clone for the good old Amiga. It seems like a cryptic language to me who are used to the C++/java style. The functions reminds me of AMOS, ie there are prebuilt functions for most simple stuff, however writing a simple Instant Messager in Java doesn't require extreme amounts of code either. I wrote an GUI Instant Messager in Java with the most common functions, incl. https connections, udpconnections, tunneling, etc and if I remember correctly it was just around 7000 lines of code in 8 sourcefiles (about 12 classes).

  51. The code is unreadable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should you just announce that any dumb ass scripting language wants to compete agains .NET to be posted on /. ??? Has anyone looked at the code ? It's awful, unreadable and unstructured. I just hate it. It's far from approching Java or C# as far as clarity is concerned. I prefer typing 25 more lines and actually write in a language in wich anyone with a clue (and not language knowledge) can understand 90% of what I do.

  52. What Larry Wall Thinks by PlaysWithMatches · · Score: 2, Informative

    Love or hate Perl, Larry Wall has some interesting thoughts and comments on REBOL.

    --

    Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
    1. Re:What Larry Wall Thinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I read that article three years ago. Most of the concerns that Mr. Wall mentioned back then have been fixed already, particularly the speed issues.

      The version of REBOL that he was reviewing was based on a Scheme-like engine, and thus was comparable in speed to interpreted Scheme. More recent versions of REBOL, even a couple months more recent, have been based on a Forth-like engine. This allowed a sometimes ten-fold increase in speed with almost no language changes.

      REBOL is now comparable in speed to Perl (often as fast, but with some differences, particularly math). No regular expressions though - you'll have to make due with the much more powerful recursive-decent parser dialect, with backtracking even. Oh well :)

      Perl people might find the lack of operator precedence annoying, though (and probably the readable code as well). You get used to it.

    2. Re:What Larry Wall Thinks by bot-man · · Score: 1

      Linus, please don't make Larry look like a fool. His comment is from years ago and inaccurate. It's like quoting Bill the month you put out your first Linux. Times change.

  53. Re:C: A Dead Language? by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that our good old /. uses perl.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  54. Hello...? by blacktyde · · Score: 1

    Okay, I see absolutely nothing useful here. It is a fat, disturbingly bloated high level language, with no perticular improvment in theory or concept over something such as java, but with even -more- built in functions. Is there anyone else here who would rather see something more interesting than a CEO trying to get his name out?

    --
    -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL+++ P+ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o K- w-- O M V PS+ PE Y+ PG
    1. Re:Hello...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm puzzled by all these incredibly illinformed negative comments about Rebol. Stuff like a fat bloated high level language, blah blah.

      I don't know about you but I find a single 250k exe to a whole lot less overhead than Perl (at least on Win32) and others.

      Then some have moaned about having built in Net functions and how that's so bogus because you may want a better implementation. Well, err, do that then. You can spec your own Internet protocols with no bother at all. In an hour I wrote a UDP scheme for querying game servers. I wonder how long that'd take in Perl?

      The language definately has it's strengths and it also has some weaknesses. But don't you think this tired old slashdot whining about anything new or something trying to do something commercial is getting a LITTLE bit old now?

      I find Rebol an invaluable tool for data mining the web and the fact that my apps run on win32, linux and my handheld is rather pleasant as well.

      If it were truly bogus people wouldn't use it, no?

    2. Re:Hello...? by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 1

      Language bloat isn't a measure of how big any one implementation is, but a measure of how many gratuitous (because any user could implement them) features are built in. Libraries can offer all the domain-specific data types you could want, and all users really need is some convenient way to write an expression that produces such a value--you don't have to build a privileged few into the fundamental syntax of the language!

  55. "Reblets" look well suited for wireless handhelds by jgaynor · · Score: 2

    check out the Rebol page of existing apps - all pretty small.

    They have a desktop/OS app that looks cool but doesnt make much monetary sense to me on a desktop unless you custom design a cheap thin client to run it and only it on.

    What does make sense though - is running these little apps on a wireless handheld. Build the Rebol assembler into an ASIC so it runs native code quickly - and let the application server do all the work.

    Rebol looks cool but just like most java apps on the desktop are passed over for native code, I dont see this flying. Perhaps if they sought to fill the niche market of weak wireless devices theyd have more success. In either case good luck to them - I havent had the chance to do any cool machine level programming like this since I lost my TI and its various shells.

  56. Why do it the hard way? by sheldon · · Score: 2

    Ok, here's an example of someone who doesn't really understand what "really sweet" means.

    I found this off the internet, it's a way to use a .Net web service to grab the stock market closes from yahoo.com.

    http://www.dotnet101.com/articles/art031_StockQu ot esWebSvc.asp

    It's kind of an interesting kludge. You place a .Net webservice in between the client and the yahoo stock pages.

    Better yet would simply be if Yahoo(or whoever) provided a web service you could instantiate, pass it the stock you want a quote on and it would return a value. Makes life tremendously simpler and no need for about half the code that was written in the above article.

    Enjoy

  57. All four of you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    w00t!

  58. Regular Expression Support Awkward by muchawi · · Score: 1

    Looking at some of the text-parsing examples made me cringe...this was not made with Huffman optimization in mind...use "any" "all" "some" instead of "* . ?"!!! Even minor text parsing examples seemed to require way too much code.

    Can anyone confirm this? Is text parsing in REBOL best done with regular expressions or some other means?

  59. Astroturfing? by brendano · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Take a look at the comments to the osnews.com article. Every frickin' one is incredibly positive and written in the same buzzword-rich, press-release style as the interview itself, extolling the virtues of REBOL. The only non-exuberantly-positive posts are ones asking about negative aspects to which there's no answer.. Is a response like that possible on a fairly moderated messageboard? It looks like the posters are selling the product instead of commenting on their experiences with it...

    --
    -Brendan
    1. Re:Astroturfing? by rh2600 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I noticed this too. They all have similar "testimonial" titles, and then great lines about the app. As a poster notes, it's like an infomercial for a fitness product. Some investigation into the IP's would be good, for some reason OSNEW's hides a random part of the IP...

  60. Unless you use JITC by moogla · · Score: 1

    It can be distrubuted in bytecode, but it can also be compiled just-in-time into an executable that runs natively, without a JVM. This requires a more complete environment on the target machine to support this bootstrap, but then, you could also just distribute the resulting binaries. As an example, there's the Java target for GCC (gcj) which creates actual executables from java source code.

    And compiled java is almost as good as compiled C (it won't win most speed tests, but the resulting code is pretty much insulated from the system, protected from buffer overflows, etc.)

    --
    Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
  61. You misunderstood the term "Dialects" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dialecting is one of REBOL's core features. It means nothing esle, that, using REBOL, you can write your own programming.-language, which is not really a new programming-language but a REBOL dialect.

    Thus, if you write a program in a REBOL dialect, you will be able to run this program on all 44 (as of yet) supported platforms,

  62. Java is compiled natively by mj6798 · · Score: 2
    I don't know about .NET, but Java is compiled into bytecode, which is run on a natively compiled byetcode interpreter. Just like Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. are. This has been a major piece of Java FUD for the longest time - it pretends to be a compiled language, because it doesn't want to be seen as "just another scripting language".

    Sorry, but you don't understand how Java implementations work. When you run "javac", you produce byte code. That byte code gets turned into native code before being executed when it is part of a performance critical section--the native code compiler is part of the Java runtime.

    Python, Perl, or Ruby do not have anything comparable: they are implemented as strict byte code interpreters (except for Jython, which piggy-backs on the Java runtime). In fact, the Java approach is better than the kind of batch compilation found in C/C++ because it allows for a lot more optimizations. For example, the JDK inlines code among dynamically loaded components.

    As for the libraries and penetration available for Java, do you not think that if Sun had developed and spend untold millions marketing Perl or Python that they would not be in the same position?

    Python or Perl are no replacement for Java. With a few exceptions, Java code runs at speeds pretty close to C/C++ under the JDK. Python and Perl implementations are orders of magnitude slower and nobody has figured out how to compile them into efficient code.

    1. Re:Java is compiled natively by p3d0 · · Score: 2
      In fact, the Java approach is better than the kind of batch compilation found in C/C++ because it allows for a lot more optimizations.
      I wouldn't go that far. There are several things impeding Java optimization:
      1. It occurs at runtime. With C/C++, you have unlimited time to optimize the code. With Java, time spent optimizing counts against program execution time.
      2. Java bytecodes use a stack-based paradigm, which is notoriously hard to optimize. Most C compilers have a register-based paradigm, whose optimization is well-understood (if perhaps not yet perfected).
      3. Java programs load classes dynamically. Every new class has the potential to clobber any assumptions you made in order to achieve any agressive dynamic optimizations. In the worst case, a Java runtime has to have all the functionality of "make" so it can compute what has changed and re-compile it as necessary.
      Dynamic optimization has a lot of promise, but with the state of technology today, it's hard to argue that C isn't faster than Java.
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:Java is compiled natively by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      The other scripting languages do something Java does not do well -- they integrate with compiled C modules and libraries. If you want speed in those languages, you write critical inner loops in C. It's not incredibly easy, but with OSS someone else will often do it, and that speed-critical piece of code will be written in reusable fashion.

      AFAIK, this is simply not possible with Java. You can potential create some sort of network service written in a fast language, and access that through Java (as with a COM/CORBA object), but that doesn't offer the level of integration and speed that the other scripting languages have with their more modest integration.

    3. Re:Java is compiled natively by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      I wouldn't go that far. There are several things impeding Java optimization: 1. It occurs at runtime. With C/C++, you have unlimited time to optimize the code. With Java, time spent optimizing counts against program execution time.

      For any reasonably compute intensive task, compilation and optimization time is negligible. You can see that either by instrumenting a Java runtime. Or you can just look at where C/C++ compilers spend their time (a lot of reparsing of header files, as well as semantic checking and linking, none of which are incurred by Java compilers) and what fraction of the code of any real program really needs to be optimized.

      2. Java bytecodes use a stack-based paradigm, which is notoriously hard to optimize. Most C compilers have a register-based paradigm, whose optimization is well-understood (if perhaps not yet perfected).

      If the JVM supported general stack-based computations that would be true. However, the JVM prohibits general stack-based computations: it requires that the stack is in a "defined state" (in a certain sense) at each byte code. The upshot is that Java byte code is essentially just a binary postfix representation of the source code. Turning that into native code is no different from what the C compiler does. (In fact, the claims in the introduction to your JHP paper are wrong, precisely because Java does not use a general stack-based architecture.)

      3. Java programs load classes dynamically. Every new class has the potential to clobber any assumptions you made in order to achieve any agressive dynamic optimizations. In the worst case, a Java runtime has to have all the functionality of "make" so it can compute what has changed and re-compile it as necessary.

      Well, so what? The necessary dependency tracking is both trivial and fast. Furthermore, because of the way Java is designed (and unlike C), there are only very few important dynamic optimizations that dynamic loading can invalidate. Note that Java does not support class reloading in high performance code (it's supported only for debugging).

      Dynamic optimization has a lot of promise, but with the state of technology today, it's hard to argue that C isn't faster than Java.

      Dynamic optimization is completely up to the task of compiling Java as well as any C compiler compiles C code. Java pays a little bit of overhead for runtime safety (less than 20% by most estimates) and there are a few areas of Java where the language definition unnecessarily prohibits optimizations (this is being addressed). Except for those areas, Java as a language is pretty much as easy and efficiently compilable as C or C++. In fact, if anything, Java has additional opportunities for optimization because of its more limited pointer model. Dynamic optimization and (closely related) partial evaluation also have been understood for more than a decade, so this isn't exactly cutting edge.

      Of course, Java libraries are often pretty slow. But that's because many Java libraries are written with a lot (too much in many cases) generality and abstraction.

      Note, of course, that batch compilers for Java exist, but they generally perform no better than a good JIT these days.

    4. Re:Java is compiled natively by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      Java has a standardized C interface. Something like SWIG (swig.org) makes accessing it pretty trivial. Several vendors also make compilers that expose C++ classes directly as Java classes.

      The problem with mixed language programming like that is that C/C++ code is unsafe, and that the semantics of C/C++ code often differ wildly from the semantics of the HLL. For example, how do you extend a C++ class with Python code and pass an instance of that back to a C++ class?

      The point about Java is that it is a pretty "fast language" (i.e., its common implementations are fast). You can write reasonably efficient image processing or string handling code in Java if you put your mind to it. So there is generally no need to use C/C++ other than for interfacing to system services. As a result, you get more portability and more runtime safety.

    5. Re:Java is compiled natively by cnkeller · · Score: 2
      Sorry, but you don't understand how Java implementations work. When you run "javac", you produce byte code. That byte code gets turned into native code before being executed when it is part of a performance critical section--the native code compiler is part of the Java runtime.

      Are you sure you know how Java works? What you are describing is Just-In-Time Compilation and Hotspot'ing and it's not mandatory. Your better Java interpreters support this, not all of them do however and this isn't required by the spec (unless times have changed). Java is, in fact, compiled to byte code and may be further compiled into native code, pending your JRE choice.

      As far as performance goes; you must be the only one in the world seeing close to C/C++ performance. Even Sun has admitted that Java will probably never live up the hype of replacing C/C++ for speed intensive applications. If you can get that kind of performance on most of your code, I've got a seven figure a year job waiting for you as a lead Java engineer.

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    6. Re:Java is compiled natively by ahde · · Score: 1

      c/c++ code is not unsafe. When was the last bug in malloc()/free() or new()/delete() ?? You can do something like:

      int *x = (char[10]) malloc (1024);
      x[9573] = 0x37ff;

      but you don't have to! You can use garbage collection libraries, or you can encapsulate data -- which a much better coding practice. It is just as safe to use a working c library in perl as to use a JRE. You can even setuid() and have a sandbox to play in if you want to run it as root.

    7. Re:Java is compiled natively by mj6798 · · Score: 2

      Good data structure libraries in C/C++ are useful. The problem is that if you call any code not under your control, all bets are off: it can trash any data structure anywhere, and you won't even know it. With Java, you are guaranteed that any code you call (even dynamically loaded code), your own or someone else's, it will not trash data that the language specifies it doesn't have access to. That is one of the reasons why Java is so much better for component-based software development than C/C++.

    8. Re:Java is compiled natively by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      For any reasonably compute intensive task, compilation and optimization time is negligible.
      I don't think that's the case, at least not if you want C-like performance. But I don't know for sure, so I'll concede that point.
      ...no different from what the C compiler does...
      Not too convincing. I certainly wouldn't want to run a C compiler at runtime.
      Well, so what? The necessary dependency tracking is both trivial and fast.
      Do you have any evidence for this, or should I just believe you?
      Furthermore, because of the way Java is designed (and unlike C), there are only very few important dynamic optimizations that dynamic loading can invalidate.
      Baloney. New classes can invalidate practically everything from inlining to monomorphic dispatch to constant propagation to you name it.

      Are you talking about JIT compilation, or dynamic compilation? I think they're two orthogonal things. JIT is really just static compilation done at runtime. It doesn't take dynamic conditions like input data values or runtime type information into account, as I understand it.

      The HP Dynamo work is an example of dynamic compilation that has nothing to do with JIT.

      Note that Java does not support class reloading in high performance code (it's supported only for debugging).
      What do you mean by "reloading"? I'm talking about class loading, which is an integral part of executing a Java program. If you're forbidding that, you might as well do static compilation.
      Dynamic optimization is completely up to the task of compiling Java as well as any C compiler compiles C code.
      But the dynamic compiler runs at runtime. How well it compiles isn't really the issue. It could compile the code down to nothing, and still take longer than a statically-compiled version, because the compilation overhead counts. You end up having to sacrifice optimizations like graph-colouring register allocation in order to save time. So no, the dynamic compiler can't necessarily do as good a job as a C compiler and still keep compilation overhead low.

      The truth is, I haven't done any dynamic compilation work, but what you're saying contradicts what I've been told by fellow researchers who implement dynamic compilation for Java, so please excuse me if I'm skeptical.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  63. Missing the point by xmedar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesnt matter how good the language is, it has to have support, qualified developers (pref. with certification), people running courses for it, and get written up in some mags like Wired that management types are going to read if it is going to become something that mainstream software shops use. Personally I don't see the advantage over say using Java or even Mozilla as a GUI (using XUL) and Perl as a scripting language for this sort of thing.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    1. Re:Missing the point by namhas · · Score: 1

      Needing qualified developers? Well, let's just
      all learn up this REBOL thing now - there we
      would already have a whole bunch of developers
      and more to come then! Besides, no-one likes .NET. Are we really going to surrender to .NET
      with no resistance?

  64. O Source or F Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A closed source language.

    This is the wrong business model for me and millions of others to be expected to buy into with our Y.A. language learning time

    If they believe in their Y.A.language, they will Open Source it.

    Goodbye Rebol.

  65. More detail... by alienmole · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Close, but no cigar. The first Lisp interpreter was written in Lisp. Before that, humans used to take Lisp code and convert it into machine code. Then McCarthy put out an exercise for his students to write a Lisp interpreter in Lisp itself. Then, one of the "human compilers" compiled this piece of Lisp code, and voila! You now had the ability to compile Lisp code.

    The Lisp-like language I was referring to is the one listed on this page - look for the heading "The First Known Interpreter". This language is not Lisp as we know it - it used McCarthy's M-expression syntax - and syntactically, it is not the S-expression language that the first interpreter was capable of interpreting. Hence my statement that "the very first computer language interpreter ever was a Lisp interpreter, written in a Lisp-like language".

    In "The implementation of Lisp" by McCarthy himself, he describes the following:

    I decided to write a paper describing LISP both as a programming language and as a formalism for doing recursive function theory. The paper was "Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, part I".
    ...
    Another way to show that LISP was neater than Turing machines was to write a universal LISP function and show that it is briefer and more comprehensible than the description of a universal Turing machine. This was the LISP function eval[e,a], ...
    ...
    S.R. Russell noticed that eval could serve as an interpreter for LISP, promptly hand coded it, and we now had a programming language with an interpreter.
    This was why I said McCarthy wrote the interpreter as something of a mathematical exercise. He was writing his "universal Lisp function" to illustrate a point in a paper, and didn't even consider that he was writing an interpreter - apparently Steve Russell noticed that. So that's why I said it was written as "something of a mathematical exercise".

    Do I get that cigar now?

  66. A bit more about REBOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What many of the humble posters here do not see is what REBOL actually is. The interview did not talk about REBOLs origins, but about its current state. Having followed REBOL development since its early days I would like to 'enhance' the public view a little:

    Sassenrath designed the AmigaOS messaging interface and if memory serves me right the AmigaOS' micro-kernel.
    Those who have had the experience of an Amiga as serious computer (no, bot booting into Lemmings and watching Demos)
    and did some programming with this, might get a picture of what this guy can do. The Amiga has since the rev.2 of its OS a common IPC scripting language, named ARexx. (derived from IBMs REXX) Today, there are very few applications, that do not include ARexx support. Even normal users, who can not write a single line of C can do fairly nice things with ARexx. Linux and Win are lightyears away from this. And as much you think this is not needed, that much you propagate squares iin favour to wheels.

    Sassenrath designed REBOL to be a messaging-language, rather than a scripting-language.

    The goal of REBOl (and this was defined long time before Java and .NET) is to enable "messaging" among various systems, Sassenrath also wanted to change the way we use computers. Actually that is the whole vision behind REBOL (which is pronounced as REBEL). It shall enable normal users writing simple programs, to automate tasks. It shall enable the businessmen to write automate some stuff on their laptop or heandhelds without having to ask the programmer to do this. One step allowing for this is the dialecting-ability of REBOL, that can, if done intelligently, allow a close to human language programming. How this develops is anotherissue. But I can well imagine companies having their "grey-suits" being trained two have their own programming skills, once such an environment is capable.

    It is all a bit esotheirc, yet. Personally I find REBOL being the ideal languagefor small and embedded devices. Imagine this on a web-pad on the couch:

    for each tv-channel
    [
    print movie at 8pm
    ]

    (While the syntax is not 100% correct, this is how it can be done in REBOL)

    Or have a look at this: directions.r

    This thing is cool. It is not targeted at the IT professional but rather at the user. Datatypes like email, URL, time, money indicate this.

    Dialecting allows to redefine the programming languages syntax in a way certain interest-gropus need it. And it is slick and small. The bare boned interpreter is only 283KB on my Linux system.

    1. Re:A bit more about REBOL by superflex · · Score: 1
      "This thing is cool. It is not targeted at the IT professional but rather at the user. Datatypes like email, URL, time, money indicate this."

      Oh good... because we all enjoy maintaining COBOL code so much, they thought we needed to try THAT again. Sigh...

      --
      sigs are for suckers
  67. Compete with .NET and Microsoft? by x136 · · Score: 1
    Rebol Tech, the company behind REBOL, consists of only 10 people and they claim they can compete and go against .NET and Microsoft's dubious plans.


    So in other words, they are a company of 10 employees, but they have about $147 billion in capital?
    --
    SIGFEH
  68. IM in 7K?!? IM in under 1K!!! by strredwolf · · Score: 2

    Instant messaging in just 7K? Yeah. I just did it in Perl. Client and server each in under 1000 bytes, basic messaging.

    I betcha if I throw in a GUI via Perl/Tk it'll bloat to 7k. Maybe.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    1. Re:IM in 7K?!? IM in under 1K!!! by strredwolf · · Score: 2
      Oh, here's a short listing to prove it:

      tygris@tygris:~/perlIM$ ls -l
      total 24
      -rw-r--r-- 1 tygris users 152 Oct 28 21:44 pim
      -rw-r--r-- 1 tygris users 994 Oct 28 21:54 pim.pl
      -rw-r--r-- 1 tygris users 675 Oct 28 21:25 pim.pl~
      -rw-r--r-- 1 tygris users 870 Oct 28 22:18 pimd.pl
      -rw-r--r-- 1 tygris users 994 Oct 28 21:55 pimd.pl~
      -rw-r--r-- 1 tygris users 142 Oct 28 21:25 pim~

      --

      --
      # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
      $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
  69. Why this stuff sucks by MSBob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm running eight different rebol apps on my system all at the same time. Each weighs in at between 6 and 12 MBytes. That's waay too much for such primitive apps (like that calculator using up 6,804K ). With such memory consumption this thing just eats memory like peanuts more so than Java. That's why I find Java unacceptable and that's why I think this stuff is crap too.

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  70. Why not Perl/Tk by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2

    Interesting point - why not just do this with Perl/Tk (for the interface) and Perl on the server?

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  71. 7kb of source code, supposedly Small? by Coventry · · Score: 1

    Thats odd, I was able to write a full-blown chat server in python, multithreaded non-blocking, with various commands and such, in less then half a KB of source (191 lines of code, to be exact)...
    Languages such as python and perl are designed for this sort of thing - they have amazing libraries that let you concentrate on your app and its problems.
    Rebol is not open sourced, yes?
    Alternatives that are amazingly powerful exist, yes? And these alternatives are open source... and have huge communities behind them...
    I'm all for Yet-Another-New-Language attempts, but please, make it open! Otherwise its just as bad as C#...

    --
    man is machine
    1. Re:7kb of source code, supposedly Small? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      512 bytes / 191 lines = less than 3 characters per line..

      I dont know Python and perl but if they are as stubby as that then maybe I shouldn't learn :)

  72. Surely you are smoking crack... by gsherman · · Score: 1

    http://finance.yahoo.com/d/quotes.csv?s=MSFT+ORCL+ INTC&f=sl1d1t1c1ohgv&e=.csv

    ...will give you a nice comma-sepped response:

    "MSFT",62.20,"10/26/2001","3:00PM",-0.36,62.32,6 3. 63,62.08,32257100
    "ORCL",13.58,"10/26/2001","3:00PM",-0.37,13.71,1 4. 08,13.40,46623900
    "INTC",25.86,"10/26/2001","3:00PM",-0.24,26.01,2 6. 50,25.55,45507200

    Why would you endure HTML-parsing hell when Yahoo provides this interface?

    Happy Halloween,

    G. Sherman

  73. 25 lines? by jcr · · Score: 2

    If it weren't for rebol I wouldn't have a 25 line script to grab the stock market closes every day from yahoo.com.

    What you describe would take about two lines of Cocoa/Objective-C code. NSString has an -initWithContentsOfURL: method, and searching for substrings is trivial with NSScanner.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  74. Number of platforms by mutende · · Score: 1
    Their platform has been ported to 44 operating systems so far!

    Yeah, you get lotsa platforms if you define e.g. "Amiga 68000" as different from "Amiga 68020+" (when, in fact, it's just a matter of adding a compiler switch). A more realistic number is 25, or less -- go to their platforms page and see for yourself.

    --
    Unselfish actions pay back better
  75. Godhood by richie2000 · · Score: 1
    Take it easy fellas, you're bashing one of my Gods here.

    One of the many legends about Carl Sassenrath is that when Commodore aquired large parts of MetaComCo's TRIPOS OS subsystems for AmigaDOS, Carl locked himself into a room and lived off of flatfood and photons for three weeks and then emerged, holding a stone tablet with the source code to exec in his hands. This was the first pre-emptive multitasking OS kernel in a home/personal computer and he did it basically on his own, in less than a mythical man-month. It's a ueberhack and you gotta respect that.

    That said, I've been looking at REBOL now and then for the last few years and while I haven't found any real use for it myself, I can see a few niche applications for it. It seems to be a neat system and I think is has a place. Then again, I will always miss ARexx...

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:Godhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at Wouter`s SHEEP. :-)

    2. Re:Godhood by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for Carl, I'd've given up on REBOL three years ago. Not that I'm anywhere close to accepting it NOW, either. Carl's just bought it something close to tolerance from a few of us.

      We're kinda waiting to see it when it's done.

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
  76. Getting bigger.. by SaltLord · · Score: 1

    These smaller devices are getting bigger every day

    Oh wait, wasn't it the other way around?

    1. Re:Getting bigger.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's referring to trends in the handheld market (WinCE/PocketPC/Palm).
      If you can't afford to think, why post?

  77. Actual # by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's more like 13 platforms:

    Amiga, Appple, Be, BSD, HP-UX, IBM AIX, Linux, MS Windows, SCO Open Server, SGI IRIX, Sun Solaris.

  78. Re:Homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you have your FTP account taken away? You seem biter about something.

  79. Try IM/IRC server in 1k (client in 3k) in K! by Jayson · · Score: 1

    It supports private and broadcast messages along with an command handler similar to IRC ("/nick" and such). This should handle over 10k messages a second easily. Here is the entire server source code (but me for the slightly longer client code if you care):

    /k server -i port {oper}

    if[~_p;."\\m i 1234"]

    Oper::[0<#_i;*_i;""]
    Who:!0
    Nicks:()
    Msgs:()

    .m.c:"if[_w _in Who;bye Who?_w]"
    .m.s:{:[(_w _in Who)&x[0]_in`msg`obj;. x;'`access]}
    .m.g:{:[(~_w _in Who)&`hi~*x;. x;'`access]}

    hi:{if[x _in Nicks;:_f""];if[0=#x;x:"guest",$_w];Nicks,:,x;sys[ time x]"enter";Who,:_w;nicks[];(x;Nicks;Msgs)}
    bye:{Who::Who _di x;n:Nicks x;Nicks::Nicks _di x;sys[time n]"exit";nicks[]}
    nicks:{Who 3:\:(`Nicks;();:;Nicks);}
    sys:{send[1;Who](`msg;(y," ",x;`blue;`gray;""))}
    time:{x," (",({(1_,/"/",'x)," ",1_,/":",'y}.$+0 100 100_vs _gtime _t),")"}
    msg:{[x;y;z;n]:["/"~*x;cmd 1_ x;txt[x;y;z]n]}
    txt:{[x;y;z;n]send[0=#n;:[0=#n;Who;_w,Who Nicks?n]](`msg;(x;y;z;Nicks[Who?_w],">",n))}
    send:{if[x;Msgs,:,z];(?y)3:\:z;}
    cmd:{Cmd[`$i#x]{|((x=" ")?0)_ d:|x}(1+i:x?" ")_ x}
    Cmd.nick:{if[(0<#x)&~x _in Nicks;n:Nicks i:Who?_w;Nicks[i]:x;_w 3:(`Nick;();:;x);sys["is now ",x]n;nicks[]]}
    Cmd.me:{sys[x,")"]"(",Nicks Who?_w;}
    Cmd.boot:{if[Oper~Nicks Who?_w;3:Who Nicks?x]}

    1. Re:Try IM/IRC server in 1k (client in 3k) in K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, pretty condense code. You can do the same thing in REBOL though. I wont venture a guess as to whether it would be a couple characters larger or smaller, as I dont fully understand your source.

      The instant messenger in question was not made to be condense, so it has real variable names, comments, and I think an image of the logo embedded in the source. Its very readable.

      I dont think REBOL syntax was made to be small either, just effective and readable.

      --Ryan Cole

    2. Re:Try IM/IRC server in 1k (client in 3k) in K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooohhhh...

      very very readable...

      NOT!

  80. rebol linux fonts by DGolden · · Score: 2

    My main problem with REBOL is pretty stupid, but annoying enough to stop me using it - it's Linux font support sucks!

    They hadn't updated it to use the XRENDER/Xft framework for anti-aliased fonts when I last used it, and it completely ignores that fact that my X Server is running a 120dpi resolution, so all the GUI elements are nearly unreadable.

    It also seems to use the first font it comes across - seeing as I have a lot of odd special-effect fonts installed, the GUI ends up looking even stupider...

    --
    Choice of masters is not freedom.
  81. Re:Ha! To You! by supagoat · · Score: 1

    > This is why REBOL will own your Java and C# crap. Because all its apps are SO SMALL.

    Umm... Appearently you're a jealous modem user. I have gigs upon gigs for storage of programs and I have a dsl modem for fast downloads. Small applications? I'm sorry, but if that was a goal in designing the language then they were trying to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist.

    Oh, and what about runtime performance? Go ahead and tell me that it's anything besides utter crap.

  82. forever a circular argument. by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    Say what you want, but a language with "forever" as a keyword seems pretty darn circular to me.

    1. Re:forever a circular argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FYI, there are no keywords at all in REBOL. The word forever represents a function.

      Why do you think the language designer decided against using keywords? If you think languages are important to the advancement of computing, REBOL is a language worth examining.

    2. Re:forever a circular argument. by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      #define forever for (;;)

  83. The language isn't the point. by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    While Rebol isn't exactly the most desirable programming language, the Rebol desktop has a well designed UI that is seamless and not half as clunky as your typical web browser. We keep hearing about all these people trying to market services and internet applications, and we hear about all these open source application servers, but when you get down to it, it's just substituting one backend with another. They all boil down to the same front end with the same impoverished user interaction capabilities we've had for the past 7 years.

    If you can't help considering the Rebol Desktop's merits apart from Rebol's shortcomings as a "power-programmer" language, consider that a population of non-programmer internet users whose tastes and browsing activities are expanding might find a very simple scripting language that enables them to easily do a lot of useful stuff with web pages and e-mail quite useful.

  84. Whew! Not what I thought! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When I first read the title, I thought that someone was REvisiting COBOL as a scripting language. Whew! That gave me nightmares.

    Instead, it's a neat little toy that will be talked up and debated for a month or two, then it will disappear. In about six months there will be another /. article about how the language has changed its license -- closely followed by news of the company's demise.

    Anonymous Kev
    Proudly posting as AC since 1997

    1. Re:Whew! Not what I thought! by bot-man · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Let's see now. REBOL first released in 1997. Hmmmm. This is 2001. Hmmmm. Looks like you're wrong again.

  85. If they really want to catch my interest . . . by mjprobst · · Score: 1

    make a demo freely available for PalmOS- and Symbian-based devices. Or supply me with a source version I can compile on *nixen besides Linux on Intel.

    If it's so incredibly simple in design and implementation, I would think those platforms would exist.

  86. Downloaded... by grufolone · · Score: 1

    and found out I have two different small rebols. one does the graphics and the other does shelly things. so, half of the demos dont work on the first, and the other half on the second. i mean, if i had a new language without user base i'd try to spread it for free as much as i could..... doesnt seem so interesting after all. builtin functions look imprressive in made-for demos, but what if you need something a little different?

    --

    "Love, work and knowledge are the well-springs of our life. They should also govern it." - W. Reich

  87. BASIC for the 'Internet.' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm something of an Amiga follower, and Carl is a pretty cool guy. That said, REBOL has its advantages and flaws, and it's sure to remain something of a niche language. However, the comment comparing it to COBOL struck a nerve. Consider how many corporateniks are today coding away in VB; for the application-space it's meant for, REBOL will produce more maintainable code, and lessen development time. Sure, the libraries are huge; it's another product that's more a "solution construction set" than an optimized general-purpose language.

    Personally, I'm too lazy to learn Perl, and Python doesn't excite me. I'm leaning towards Ruby, but, were REBOL's business/licensing model less screwed, I'd be jumping at it. As the stock quote comment pointed out, it makes a great 'extraction and report' language for the web, and there are times when you wish you had a tool that would let you bust out something with that level of simple integration, in 5 minutes or so.

    The REBOL company is playing up the rapid-development angle/"executable internet" angle too much. It's really about giving a relatively unskilled user the ability to sit down and automate part of their workday... the same way that BASIC let you walk up to an old 8-bit machine and do some math, y'know? I'm sure Sassenrath designed the language with this concept in mind; he just got overexcited when it came time to market it. (If the consumer WWW ever does become 'executable,' it'll be via open standards- Java- or through the extension of chrome plugins- Flash has somehow seen great acceptance, because style sells better than substance.)

  88. Goes beyond programming by bot-man · · Score: 1

    REBOL's cool here's why: It's not about programming, stupid. It's about communications. If you didn't get that, then you missed the point. That's the problem being solved, and it seems like a cool way about it. (Judging from your comments, you did not even look at it. 500K, no libs, lots-o-datatypes, fine encryption. Sure, still V1 but damn slick.)

    What ever happened to innovation anyway? Us slashheads farts get stuck in the 70's with our long hair and TTYs (that always hurt). It's been stagnation since the www came out and perl ascended to the throne.

    "Step aside old men; time to let the kids take over."

  89. Yes, I made REBOL. by reburu · · Score: 1

    REBOL was designed for semantic exchange and interpretation. It's quite good for distributed computing, it's been a 20 year gig, and you will be using it in a year or two. Sorry if that sounds too buzzy or technical, but it's a concise summary. Been watching your bashing party. Feels like driving through the southern US in 1962. I make my own wine and beer too, but I think I'd rather have what you guys are drinking. But then if it makes me beat up anyone who speaks with an accent, maybe not. -Carl Sassenrath REBOL Founder & CTO

  90. All this angst! by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bashing languages with the usual "But you can also do that in language X!" comments and general defensive put-downs is misguided. Of course you can do the same thing in any language; that's a fundamental principle of computer science. The reason we have a variety of languages is because some languages make things easier than others.

    In Perl, munging through text files is a snap. The syntax is succint, and regular expressions are supported at the language level. But that doesn't mean Perl is good for everything, though. Regular expressions don't scale up to what you'd need to write a full BNF parser in Perl. And, sure, you can hook to http and ftp libraries, but they aren't integrated into the language in the same way that the "file exists?" operator is.

    REBOL has several strengths. One is that its parsing features effectively *are* BNF, so you can write complex parsers for mini-languages with great ease, and without resorting to lex, yacc, and such. The other advantage is that having language-level support for internet protocols is very convenient. Sure, you can get at them through a Perl module, but if you argue that then you have to ask why regular expressions shouldn't be a separate module as well.

    All this blind bashing of languages is tiring. It's exactly like the kiddies who bash whatever game console they didn't get for Christmas.

  91. Rebol ? by qbalus · · Score: 1

    I was very interested at first glance, I downloaded the Rebol Core, got on a few lists, and observed the dialog for a couple of months, and unsubscribed. Its still very early, I'd like to have seen some applications of size and complexity but what I mostly saw reminded me of the early Java applet phase. I wish I could remember a recent url where reviews of Rebol are discussed... it reminded me of a 30 minute info-merical... I've heard those George Forman grills are pretty good... Don't know about that juice guy though... the eyebrows freak me out

    qbalus

  92. And you pronounce this name how? by ecloud · · Score: 1

    pim.pl - "pimple"? Yuck! :-)