From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 30-Mar-00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Is it fair to call it Visual rebol or rebol for Windows, maybe
> >> rebol++? Perhaps not, as some take offense to that sort of
> >> comparison.
> >
> > It sounds pretty offensive to REBOL itself.
>
> Well, so long as there's no Amiga or Mac version, it is Rebol for
> Windows. It looks nice, but I'm not programming with it until it runs on
> a computer I use.
>
> The big advantage of Rebol over Java was that it worked on all
> platforms. If that is no longer to be true, then Rebol ceases to be
> interesting.
Actually, REBOL works fine on over 30 platforms. Rebol/View is in limited
Beta right now. By limited they mean to a limited number of people, and on
a limited number of platforms. Such as it is, by targeting Windows and
Linux with the Rebol/View beta, they manage to cover a larger percentage of
the market than the Amiga and Mac market.
Since I have 6 active computer systems in my house:
1> Win2000 - Dual Celeron (505MHz ea) home-built monster with all sorts of
crazy hardware.
2> Win98 - K6-2 300MHz (first ever Windows system), mostly used by GF.
3> RH 6.1 Linux - K6-2 300MHz Apache, php4, mySQL web server.
4> A3000 Tower w/ o40, and Picasso gfx, and ethernet card.
5> A1200 o40 accelerated, sqirrel SCSI/Fast serial
6> Color NeXT station Turbo (o40 based) running NeXT-Step.
I'll admit I'm somewhat atypical - most people probably stop with one or two
systems, and they tend to run one or two OSes.
Sure, while View only runs on the Windows systems (the Linux box doesn't
have X installed to run - only for the graphical libraries to handle TTF and
GD libraries) - Rebol/Core runs fine on both Win systems, and the Linux and
the Amigas... It allows me to accomplish plenty of useful tasks on all of
them.
Unfortunately, such as it is, most of my work is done on the Win2000
system - because it runs HomeSite, and modern browsers...
- Porter
