4 ms·

>Like what? Like Rebol/Red. >Programmers want familiar syntax and infix notation Programmers wanted batch punchcards processing over timesharing interactive

by mapcars 10y ago

>Like what? Like Rebol/Red. >Programmers want familiar syntax and infix notation Programmers wanted batch punchcards processing over timesharing interactive terminals, programmers wanted legacy and compatibility over innovation and modernization. Programmers wanted ugly write-compile-run-test in 70s terminal emulator stuff over live interactive graphical in-place debuggers. Face it, programmers are stupid and can't learn new technologies.

kaoD 10y ago
> Like Rebol/Red. Well, that was unexpected. It's too late guys, you should have tried to popularize Forth like 20-30 years ago.
- mapcars 10y ago
  >Forth Why Forth? You just opened wiki Rebol article and first thing you saw was Forth, wasn't it?
  - kaoD 10y ago
    I'm certainly not familiar with Rebol/Red, but every single time I've been introduced to them as "modern incarnations of Forth", and AFAICR they conserve right-to-left function application and the concept of dictionaries as dialects of the language, don't they?
    - mapcars 10y ago
      Red is modern incarnation of Rebol, which is it's own unique language. It was influenced by Forth, true, but this is only influencing, Rebol has much more of it's own ideas than taken from others.
keymone 10y ago
> Programmers wanted batch punchcards processing over timesharing interactive terminals, programmers wanted legacy and compatibility over innovation and modernization. wow, really, all of them? that is amazing. tell me more!
- mapcars 10y ago
  >wow, really, all of them? If all of them would do it, we wouldn't have this discussion now. Small amount, obviously, tries to make better stuff. >tell me more! First go and check out plan9, genera, smalltalk and rebol.
  - keymone 10y ago
    > Small amount, obviously, tries to make better stuff. interesting! but how small? like maybe as small as amount of early lispers working on making better language? would that be a valid comparison? > plan9, genera, smalltalk and rebol done.
    - mapcars 10y ago
      >but how small? No idea, I keep discovering stuff from past 30 years which I never even heard about, I can't imagine how many new technologies appear in our time. >done. So, do you find things programmers are using in their daily work good?
      - keymone 10y ago
        > So, do you find things programmers are using in their daily work good? i find programmers using full spectrum from horrible to amazing. the reasons some people stay on lower end of that spectrum range from psychological to business constraints. i think more interesting question is why is it that while considering yourself being somewhere in the upper end of the spectrum you decide to shit on lisp, which arguably is the starting point of everything you deem good.
        mapcars 10y ago
        >you decide to shit on lisp I don't shit on lisp, I've been for lisp since I discovered it many years ago. I'm against new worthless implementations presenting lisp as language only capable to parasite on other platforms, without having it's own real thing. To me lisp is an idea, which ironically found it's best implementation (from what I've seen so far) in Rebol.
shakna 10y ago
An even less popular programming language is your justification? Red does compare itself to LISP in many ways, true. But Clojure, for example, is actually popular enough that places use it for real work, today.
- mapcars 10y ago
  >Red does compare itself to LISP in many ways, true. Not only compares, it does extend many things which Lisp failed to do when it became unpopular. >But Clojure, for example, is actually popular enough that places use it for real work, today Yes, and this is very good, because it gives many people idea that programming may be much better than they used to. My position here is that Clojure is only the beginning.
  - shakna 10y ago
    > Now we have much more powerful things, while you are still trying to catch up with lisps. You're stated opinion seems to be that Clojure is playing catch-up, not that it is the beginning of something better. Also, as someone who uses Red & Clojure, I'm curious why you think it's more powerful? I would compare Parse, Red's most notable feature, with core.match from Clojure.
    - mapcars 10y ago
      >You're stated opinion seems to be that Clojure is playing catch-up Not really, it was about Zygomys, Clojure did it thing long time ago and proved it has something to offer, like STM in the core of language. >I would compare Parse, Red's most notable feature, with core.match from Clojure. I don't know the internals of core.match, but can it change rules in runtime like this? red>> rule1: ['a] == ['a] red>> changer: [(append rule1 [| 'b])] == [(append rule1 [| 'b])] red>> parse [a a b b] [any rule1 [number! changer | ] any rule1] == false red>> parse [a a 1 b b] [any rule1 [number! changer | ] any rule1] == true (the code is not idiomatic or good, it's just what I came up with to quickly demonstrate what I mean)
      - 10y ago

by mapcars 10y ago

kaoD 10y ago

> Like Rebol/Red. Well, that was unexpected. It's too late guys, you should have tried to popularize Forth like 20-30 years ago.

mapcars 10y ago
>Forth Why Forth? You just opened wiki Rebol article and first thing you saw was Forth, wasn't it?
- kaoD 10y ago
  I'm certainly not familiar with Rebol/Red, but every single time I've been introduced to them as "modern incarnations of Forth", and AFAICR they conserve right-to-left function application and the concept of dictionaries as dialects of the language, don't they?
  - mapcars 10y ago
    Red is modern incarnation of Rebol, which is it's own unique language. It was influenced by Forth, true, but this is only influencing, Rebol has much more of it's own ideas than taken from others.

keymone 10y ago

> Programmers wanted batch punchcards processing over timesharing interactive terminals, programmers wanted legacy and compatibility over innovation and modernization. wow, really, all of them? that is amazing. tell me more!

mapcars 10y ago
>wow, really, all of them? If all of them would do it, we wouldn't have this discussion now. Small amount, obviously, tries to make better stuff. >tell me more! First go and check out plan9, genera, smalltalk and rebol.
- keymone 10y ago
  > Small amount, obviously, tries to make better stuff. interesting! but how small? like maybe as small as amount of early lispers working on making better language? would that be a valid comparison? > plan9, genera, smalltalk and rebol done.
  - mapcars 10y ago
    >but how small? No idea, I keep discovering stuff from past 30 years which I never even heard about, I can't imagine how many new technologies appear in our time. >done. So, do you find things programmers are using in their daily work good?
    - keymone 10y ago
      > So, do you find things programmers are using in their daily work good? i find programmers using full spectrum from horrible to amazing. the reasons some people stay on lower end of that spectrum range from psychological to business constraints. i think more interesting question is why is it that while considering yourself being somewhere in the upper end of the spectrum you decide to shit on lisp, which arguably is the starting point of everything you deem good.
      - mapcars 10y ago
        >you decide to shit on lisp I don't shit on lisp, I've been for lisp since I discovered it many years ago. I'm against new worthless implementations presenting lisp as language only capable to parasite on other platforms, without having it's own real thing. To me lisp is an idea, which ironically found it's best implementation (from what I've seen so far) in Rebol.

shakna 10y ago

An even less popular programming language is your justification? Red does compare itself to LISP in many ways, true. But Clojure, for example, is actually popular enough that places use it for real work, today.

mapcars 10y ago
>Red does compare itself to LISP in many ways, true. Not only compares, it does extend many things which Lisp failed to do when it became unpopular. >But Clojure, for example, is actually popular enough that places use it for real work, today Yes, and this is very good, because it gives many people idea that programming may be much better than they used to. My position here is that Clojure is only the beginning.
- shakna 10y ago
  > Now we have much more powerful things, while you are still trying to catch up with lisps. You're stated opinion seems to be that Clojure is playing catch-up, not that it is the beginning of something better. Also, as someone who uses Red & Clojure, I'm curious why you think it's more powerful? I would compare Parse, Red's most notable feature, with core.match from Clojure.
  - mapcars 10y ago
    >You're stated opinion seems to be that Clojure is playing catch-up Not really, it was about Zygomys, Clojure did it thing long time ago and proved it has something to offer, like STM in the core of language. >I would compare Parse, Red's most notable feature, with core.match from Clojure. I don't know the internals of core.match, but can it change rules in runtime like this? red>> rule1: ['a] == ['a] red>> changer: [(append rule1 [| 'b])] == [(append rule1 [| 'b])] red>> parse [a a b b] [any rule1 [number! changer | ] any rule1] == false red>> parse [a a 1 b b] [any rule1 [number! changer | ] any rule1] == true (the code is not idiomatic or good, it's just what I came up with to quickly demonstrate what I mean)
    - 10y ago