From: tony summerfelt <snowzone5@...>
Date: 2005-11-03T21:36:11+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] Ruby vs REBOL

Peter Carlsson wrote on 11/3/2005 2:09 AM:

> scare many people away. If the documentation was good, maybe
> the syntax didn't have to feel "quirky".

i agree. when people see how quickly net related operations can be
done because of the built in protocols quirky will not be factor.

somebody else mentioned the fact that opensource languages are adopted
a lot quicker.

i realize the folks in charge of rebol want to make money, but
crippling a programming language is not the way to do it.

view just was just recently allowed to access the shell but i think
that came a little too late.

take a look at some of the applications written in ruby (freeride
being a great example) there's NOTHING this sophisticated in rebol
with the possible exception of altme.

altme is unique but it's two major problems are: too integrated with
the altme server (with a cost of $295 on linux to 'free' it) and that
the source is not available. i think if the source had be available
you would have seen a file transfer feature 2 years ago.

none of the programs in the script library are sophisticated enough to
 'steal' for use in other programs.

having said all that, i like rebol. i like the 'feel'. i like the
size. i'm still holding out for the sdk to drop below $100 U.S so some
of us single developers can add it to our toolbox :)

-- 
http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1