Speaking from my position as the Director Of The Bureau Of Perpetual Beginners, and from my side job as Human Level Of Abstraction, I'm happy to use anything as long as it operates like R2, specifically, I can download one executable program and use it to run programs I have written with a text editor, complete programs that can access databases and make graphical interfaces.
Nice title Steve. :-)
I think we have enough REBOL-like interpreters now. I just want one that is as complete as R2, is open source and has bugs fixed.
REBOL has become like Linux: there are plenty to choose from, but there is never one that does everything you need
And the ones that get maintained are moving only in directions you are not waiting for.
My biggest thing about this R4 is that Carl will be reinventing the wheel in a different way again. Where we already have a car but need a roof against sun and rain windows to looks through and protect us from flies stones and the weather in general, we need raintyres not to slip on the wet roads etc
On the other hand, I do remember the project Contra, aka Rebol2. It took Carl to rewrite Rebol 1 few months, delivering, smaller, faster and much more complete package (networking, parse)
Okay, but two other things are now playing. First Carl has a job at Roku (I don't know if it is full-time) and how about the investors of R2 and (possible) reuse of code even if created new by Carl.
I rather would see Carl joining Red team in his free time, advising the new R4 way
not a single world against that, but we all know Carl - he is a solist, likes to work in isolation, etc. And yes, Roku job seems to be a full time job, so works against him. I think that Carl is mostly developing it for his own home automatition reasons and pure joy.
It seems a bit unfair to R3 guys, trying to push things further. Red has its own plan, development team and is moving forward no matter what ....
The R3 guys did great things, mostly in getting the unity back in the language. Without access to the main repo it was a lost cause. It was fun doing all stuff but to attract developers and users the wrong path was followed. Because all we want is to get as quickly back on the road that R2 opened up: cross platform inclusive GUI. Go there and add sound, 64 bit, Android/mobile support and you get a chance.
Now that Red has rounded the first GUI release it has become a really great option. After 0.7 it will really become a force to recon with. The fact it will be independent of C is becoming more attractive.

The Atronix R3 windows build, which is 64bit and has a decent CALL implementation, was good enough for me to move everything from R2 to R3 ... but GUI and cross-platform aren't that important to me anymore. Point being, different folks will have different "key feature" requirements that will cause them to choose R2, R3 or Red; although I'm hopeful that Red will eventually become a superset of R3 at which time I can migrate from R3 to Red (or R4 depending on where it goes).
I also wouldn't overstate the differences between each flavour ... converting several hundred scripts from R2 to R3 took me less than a day; it's not like C vs C+ vs C#.
To me, Rebol4 would be based on R3, not a full rewrite. There is plenty of source code already opensourced, so reusable for R4.
But let see it (may be) on day ;-)
Maybe before it is released, Carl decides to come up with Rebol 5 :-)
I think Pekr has a very good idea of the reasons Carl does what he does. He starts building a house (Contra) and then decides the foundation would be better if he did it a different way (R2). So he improves the foundation and starts building another house, only to decide to improve the foundation again (R3). After a while, he gets a REALLY good foundation (some future iteration of the original idea), but still no house. But when he finally finishes building a house on that REALLY good foundation, it will be a REALLY good house!
His job at Roku is full-time and more. I believe that building languages is something that Carl does to satisfy his creative intellect.
What I have never understood fully, though I do get the rationale, is why, with REBOL being a tool you can use to build tools, Carl never fully embraced it to build the next version of itself. While I want "One R to rule them all", I'm not opposed to specialized versions. e.g. a Forth-like version that implements only the most necessary bits at the lowest level, and is as small as possible for IoT and such. But what really resonates with me in Red is that is uses REBOL, and will then self-host. Dialects all the way down.
I think the thing that Carl is missing with his foundation is what Doc isn't with Red/System. If there was a Rebol/System, then he could do that.
But optimizing a Rebol/System (or Red/System for that matter) compiler is a huge job, something that is already done with C.

Last message posted 178 weeks ago.