[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > I think many would say that a language like REBOL pretty much
> > obliterates
> > > the need for literate programming... do you agree?
> >
> > Explain this assertion.
> >
> > Katt
> >
>
> Yes, elucidate, if you will.
>
> >From my viewpoint, Rebol epotomizes literacy in programming by its code
> being more readable and therefore more communicative. I've been programming
> for over 20 years and written several books about computer
> languages--everything from BASIC to Prolog--and Rebol certainly rises above
> those in literacy; i.e. clarity and the ease of achieving routine tasks with
> minimal but understandable coding.
>
> --Ralph
Yes, I totally agree. When I say that scripting in Rebol is like
writing poetry,
I mean that quite literally.
(last decade I wrote maybe the first hypermedia haiku--Rebol makes this
much easier)
I bought the book on Literate Programming, by Knuth, I think, but it
does miss the point.
Rebol hits it dead on. (but of course, what do we expect from the
master who
invented 'autodoc' software. Rebol takes autodoc to the extreme, where
it is built-in.
Put those comments to work! Don't let that ascii take up all that dead
weight in the source...)
What I discovered during this past lazy weekend in Seattle reading
Christopher Alexander is that
Design Patterns is a 'literal' design process, if you will,
incorporating language (dialect)
into the design process. (whereas most people have to bring the design
to language and
therefore add steps)
The design pattern language is meant to be a communicative language that
a group of people
can use together to design together, to make designs that are 'alive'
and natural.
Rebol's literacy makes it a better CASE tool than UML, IMHO...
Steve Shireman
"Listen to what I mean, not to what I say..." my mother (not sure who
she ripped this off of)
