Hi, Grant!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ... I'm not saying limit it strictly to coding
> questions and examples, because I think discussions on
> collaborative efforts to build a few killer apps is
> fruitful, but maybe there should be another list for
> all the discussions about what RT 'should' do.
>
Am I the only one who caught the irony here? A post that
asserts that there's too much discussion "about what RT
'should' do" contains the suggestion that "there should be
another list"! As RT is hosting the mailing list, this
suggestion provides another thing RT "should" do! ;-)
>
> I am simply happy to have such a language which is so
> new and different and powerful.
>
I am happy to have REBOL, as well. However, the traffic
on this list has always included suggestions for what RT
could/should do to make the language more powerful, or at
least more responsive to people's specific needs.
Some of these issues (e.g., compiling to byte-code or
other non-source form) have to do BOTH with the technical
capabilities of the language, AND with RT policy and
long-term plans. Members of this list should be able to
express themselves on such issues, as they ultimately
affect us all.
Some of the members of this list have expended much-
greater-than-average effort toward REBOL advocacy, a
subject that ultimately affects all of us -- wider usage
of REBOL translates into less risk of losing a language
of which we are all fond. But taking an advocacy
position causes one to have a greater need to understand
the answer to "Whither REBOL?"
Some of the components of this question (e.g., long-term
pricing and product stragegies, including definitions of
future products) are more about the position RT wishes to
occupy in the computing industry than about technical
details, but there is still SOME overlap.
Members of this list (especially the ones who are taking
publicly visible positions of REBOL advocacy or who are
trying to drive behind-the-scenes decisions that affect
REBOL adpotion) should be able to ask that question, and
be able to express opinions regarding the relative merits
of various possible answers, as this question affects us
all.
My experience has been that reading (or participating in)
the discussions of all of the above usually forces me to
clarify my own thoughts and introduces me to ideas of
others that I would never have had on my own. YMMV.
>
> I mean no offense, but how many of us who are so smart
> about what RT needs to do to be successful could have
> done what they've done?
>
I mean no offense either, but REBOL has reached a point
in its life where the visible part of "what they've done"
thus far probably has less to do with the long-term
viability of REBOL as a professional programming language
than what they're going to do next -- and that's not just
technical in nature.
RT has been very patient with a wide range of suggestions
and discussions (technical or otherwise) on this list.
The "old hands" on this list have been very patient with
suggestions, discussions, and questions (mostly technical
and elementary) from the new/newer/newest members (which
includes me). I suggest that we all have patience with
discussions which may not interest all of us equally, but
which are usually important to the participants. In the
extreme case, I find the Subject: header a valuable clue
as to whether I want to invest time in reading a post.
OBTW, I also agree that, beyond a certain point, beating
a dead horse is not only unproductive, but downright
disgusting!!!
(Unless, of course, you're tenderizing horse steaks! ;-)
-jn-
