AltME: Community

Messages

Robert
R3 gives us the chance to use one technology on a broad range of systems. I don't say the same code, but the same technology.
There are several levels of work that can be scaled up. The base layer stuff, that's the C & D level.
Than we have fundamental frameworks and libs like R3-GUI etc. this is a mix of Rebol code and enhancements on the C/D level.
Than we have the product level, that's what's visible and keeps the fire burning. Spitting out cool applications in a fast rate is key. I see several markets to address: B2B tools, mostly more effort to develop but long lasting and big money. Consumer or Internet market applications. More low cost but high volume stuff.
And mobile things. Whatever app is missing today I don't know. I can imainge some cool B2B mobile apps, that really help.
Regarding the crowd funding idea, yes, it's appealing. The promise would be: You get a complete vertical technology stack to fund your next company or app on.
That's it. Take the assambly we did and use it to be 20 times more productive than anyone else.

Maxim
Does anyone know how to reach Brian Tiffing nowadays?  the email given here isn't valid anymore!
GrahamC
have you tried SO ?
Bo
I haven't seen Brian Tiffin on SO for quite some time.
Kaj
The head of OpenCOBOL shouldn't be hard to find

Maarten
Robert, agreed. Though I'm starting to lean more to Go for native (C-like).It seems low-level at first, but that's an illusion.
But... rebuilding R3, when we have Red coming... does that make sense?
Pekr
Maarten - well, some ppl might ask just the reverse - why to continue with Red, if/when R3 got open-sourced? R3 is closer to completion, Saphirion invested time/money into it. Difficult to suggest one or the other side, to shut down the project. I am curious, what chat with Carl during the devcon will reveal ....
Some ppl need some solution now, whereas Red seems being really far from completion, and that's simply another aspect ....
Bo
When I have talked to Carl about Red, he is very interested in it, but wishes he had more time to delve into it.  He has great respect for Doc and his abilities.
When I first talked with Carl at length about Rebol in 1997, his reason for creating Rebol was because he had learned and used so many languages, but they all fell short of his definition of a "perfect" language.  He liked Lisp and Smalltalk, but there were issues with them as well.  Rebol was his attempt at filling in the holes and creating a multi-purpose language that made simple things simple to do, while still allowing complex things to be possible.  (I'm going back in my memory 16 years here, so I hope Carl forgives me if I left something out.)
Because of the above, I can't imagine he wouldn't want to see any Rebol-like language to succeed as long as they held true to his vision of creating a language that made simple things simple to do, while allowing complex things to be possible - with efficiency and cleanness of design.
Pekr
I simply believe, that during the Devcon, it will be the right time to exchange some ideas and explanations. Looking forward to the outcome of the meeting :-)
Maxim
there are hundreds of C derived languages, its not that big a deal for REBOL to have only a handfull active derivatives.  really, its a good thing.
Arnold
The beauty of freedom from C on all platforms cross-platform, relative speed => Red
The flexibility of REBOL to the maximum, remember Red will be a Reduced REBOL dialect => R3

Last message posted 223 weeks ago.