Hello Martin:
I'm a C/C++ programmer just beginning to learn rebol. If you want
a different slant on this, check the mailing list for last week, on
a letter I sent with "imbedding rebol" in the subject header. If you
want a copy, I will send it. It didn't engender much comment, except
on a mistaken reference that I made in the opening allegory.
I'm using the Boxer 99 editor for rebol (on WinNT). I believe that
there are rebol extensions for emacs (and emacs is now available
for Windooz)
regards
tim
At 12:00 AM 2/15/00 -0800, you wrote:
>I'm philosophising about directions REBOL could take. I've been working on a
>C based editor/IDE for REBOL (just Ctrl+R, your script is saved and REBOL is
>run on the script), and I've also downloaded two varieties of SmallTalk and
>had a little play with both.
> So what do C and SmallTalk have to do with REBOL? Well, at least one of
>the SmallTalks had been self-extended by having (as I understand it) a
>SmallTalk to C translator. With this, development for a new interface (for
>example, reading, playing and writing midi or other media files) is done in
>the SmallTalk environment, then when the code works correctly, C code is
>generated and compiler, then included into the SmallTalk 'image'.
> With the aid of REBOL/Command (when it comes out), a malleable REBOL
>environment with _native_ look and feel (or with a default look and feel),
>could be developed. With a simplistic REBOL to C or machine code translator
>(one that operates on script that isn't self modifying), a fast, intuitive,
>easily enhanced environment could be created. This could lead to, as with
>SmallTalk, a environment or even operating system, based entirely on REBOL.
>
>pekr and others, what do you think?
>
>Andrew Martin
>REBOLution the OS...
>ICQ: 26227169
>http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
>-><-
>
>
