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.

16 of 246 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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...

  8. 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).

  9. 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
  10. 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?

  11. 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.
  12. 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.