3 ms·
No need to apologize, that was a good example :) I liked this big: >> unique collect [foreach val blk [keep type? val]] == [word! time! email! url! paren! f
by vram22 10y ago
No need to apologize, that was a good example :)
I liked this big:
>> unique collect [foreach val blk [keep type? val]]
== [word! time! email! url! paren! file! issue! pair! tuple! set-word!]
I think it could almost be read and understood by a person who does not know REBOL or Red.
- greggirwin 10y agoYup. We often write code like normal programmers, but sometimes we do build up vocabularies more, even when not using `parse` to write DSLs. "Red or REBOL" = Redbol (sounds like Red Bull) :) And where Perl has Mongers, Ruby has Rubyists, Python has Pythonistas, and Rebol has Rebolers, Red has Reducers.
- vram22 10y agoHa, Reducers is a good term, considering: the goals of Red (reducing complexity being one), the small size of Red (and REBOL) programs that get non-trivial things done, and finally the size of the software itself (the interpreter - and also compiler in the case of Red). Even the small EXE sizes, in fact (though I've only created EXEs for small programs so far, with it).