At 03:26 PM 10/27/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Hello, Russ:
>
>On 27-Oct-99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You (and Bo) seem to totally miss the point.
>
>I'll let Bo and Martin defend themselves, but I doubt this. REBOL knows where
>they want REBOL to go, and I doubt it's back to 16-bit systems.
You miss the point, as well. "BACK?" to 16-bit systems??? Both 16-bit AND
8-bit micros are alive and well in the embedded world.. surprise! Just take
a look at the very active development of new chips at Microchip
(www.microchip.com) or Hitachi for current examples. Perhaps the upcoming
PIC 2000 contest co-sponsored by Circuit Cellar INK and Microchip
(http://www.circuitcellar.com/pic2000/) serves to illustrate just some of
the _current_ interest in this area.
It seems I've raised an issue amongst a group which has no idea of "the
other world" that exists and thrives, in which tiny (by PC standards)
micro's control all sorts of devices and accomplish fantastic feats
(including more and more networking at the TCP/IP level). Unfortunately,
simply because PC's are the most popular and common platform, and they have
gone the way of more and more complexity, people tend to think the whole
world has gone that way. Even more unfortuate, because many tool developers
(which REBOL is, after all... a tool for accomplishing real things) also see
a greater potential income in those popular marketplaces, and so the tools
often do not propagate down to the "small embedded processor" areana... of
which I speak. If REBOL's intention is truly to not support that
marketplace, it's their choice.. and a big loss for everyone. But it's
certainly NOT going BACK to anything. It's supporting an evergrowing and
very alive and healthy marketplace.
>
>> I'm quite serious about the Rebol on DOS question
>
>The question is pointless unless a PC DOS has a TCP/IP stack.
It's already been stated that such exists. Not w/in the O/S itself but as
programs that run on it (just as Winsock runs on Windows). Take a look at
Crynwr Packet Drivers for just the beginning of quite a collection of basic
tools for IP communication.
>> but from Bo's sarcastic
>> remark (if that's indicative of company policy) I can see it's fallen on
>> deaf ears.
>
>You were told not to take it seriously, so don't.
Sarcasm has its place and I can laugh (and did) along with anyone. But if
sarcasm is the ONLY answer to a serious question, then it implies a deeper
position... and perhaps the answer to the question that was posed. If it is
accompanied by a forthright answer (even one of "I don't know, but i'll
check"), then it can be taken as "just" sarcasm.
It was certainly not my intention to begin or participate in a flame contest
over this. I simply asked what I thought was a very straightforward,
logical, and meaningful question... and I'm still looking for a direct
answer. Perhaps this is the wrong forum. From private replies I've
received re this issue from others who read this list, I can see that other
embedded system people share my views... guess we're just usually the silent
types who work our magic behind the scenes. Back I go...
>--
>
> ---===///||| Donald Dalley |||\\\===---
> The World of AmiBroker Support
> http://webhome.idirect.com/~ddalley
> Member: ICOA and Team AMIGA
>
>
>
