4 ms·
Can you back up your acqusations with palpable evidence? Neither Red author, nor any of official project representatives "made a go" on Clojure or any other lan
by 9214 8y ago
Can you back up your acqusations with palpable evidence? Neither Red author, nor any of official project representatives "made a go" on Clojure or any other language and its community, as far as I'm concerned.
As for "defensive lashing" - you should make a distinction between informed, well-posed critique and arrogant, unbacked ranting. Everyone accepts the former and does not tolerate the latter - the team is no exception. And, again - either provide an evidence for what you say or back off your claims. Calling project megalomaniacal for fighting FUD is completely off base, and every criticism raised in this thread was handled politely. Heck, I can pull out any blog post from one of Clojure community members and start claiming that it represents opinions of Hickey. Would that be OK? I guess not.
Even if there is a cost in using Rebol2 as bootsrapping language, it will be gone with 1.0 release. And right now Rebol source code takes roughly a quarter of whole codebase (compilers and linkers for Red and Red/System) - the rest is pure Red and its dialects. So your whole paragraph is completely irrelevant and misleading: lack of 64-bit support has nothing to do with Rebol2, bold "non-free dependency" claim does not have any weight to it (since when bootstrapping language is a dependency?) and "SSL library" passage tells me that you don't have an idea of what you're talking about.
And use official resources (Red and Rebol websites) as references, would you? Wiki page is an extremely weak testimony to whatever you have to say.
No project is ideal, but Red's terms are completely different from what you try to impose here. I do not say that we don't have holes in the housing - we do, and we have all what is necessary to close them.
- hjek 8y ago> And use official resources (Red and Rebol websites) as references, would you? Wiki page is an extremely weak testimony to whatever you have to say. That's my mistake. The quote about Clojure I provided were from `redprogramming.com` which is linked to from the official website and from your Github, so it looked official to me. The comparison with Python is from a blog of one of the Rebol developers. Not sure whether that qualifies as official. If the Wikipedia article about Red is wrong, it might be a good idea to correct it..? > Even if there is a cost in using Rebol2 as bootsrapping language, it will be gone with 1.0 release. [...] (since when bootstrapping language is a dependency?) That's cool, and I wasn't aware of that. I just assumed Red was to Rebol what Hy is to Python and Clojure to Java, but that's great that that is a non-issue!
- 9214 8y ago> `redprogramming.com` which is linked to from the official website Official page links to learning resources provided by community, to compensate for TBD state of official documentation. We can't, however, control other people's opinions, or dictate them how to express themselves. People can unintentionally say provocative things in a burst of excitement, I hope you understand that. And there are reasons to be excited about Red and Rebol. > The comparison with Python is from a blog of one of the Rebol developers. Not sure whether that qualifies as official. As I said, we can't control other people, and are not responsible for other's bold claims. I too do not think that this benchmark was fair and objective. As for the wiki page - we'll note that. I'm just saying that any other person can go there and apply his/her edits, without project's consent. > I just assumed Red was to Rebol what Hy is to Python and Clojure to Java, but that's great that that is a non-issue! It's good that this confusion is resolved. Hy and Clojure are hosted languages by nature, but Red is entirely self-contained (although you might think that it depends on Red/System dialect).