What is Rebol/Shell? Is this an upcoming replacement for command line shells (ie.
bash)? Sounds
really interesting... I would like this...
Rishi
>
>
> > > Well imagine following:
> > >
> > > in pseudo-code:
> > >
> > > ftpcopy rebol to host x
> > > open telnetsession to host "x"
> > > run rebol on host "x"
> > >
> > > Do you see the possibilities?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Jochen
> >
> > You're right with this one, but then again, if rebol will be accessible on
> > the other side, you can/could execute your code in a more direct manner.
> >
> > We're talking about local execution here. I have no problem with executing
> > programs on other machines, with rebol or not, but be it rebol, it would
> > be much easier and simpler to implement.
> >
> > Regarding Elan's answer:
> >
> > > REBOL/Command gives you quite a lot of access to the OS (launching
> > > programs,
> > > redirecting program output to the console, loading libraries
> > > ...). What's wrong with paying for a program? ;-)
> >
> > I'm not against commercial software, but there have been many points and
> > questions already raised by Pekr. Not going into this... (again!?:)
> >
> > But what you're telling me is: if you want to execute an external program,
> > pay $250 for it. You know, I need a single system call! I like the
> > abilities that /Command gives you, but I don't need all this to do exec.
> >
> > I'm not saying you can't go with wrap-arounds, but WHY???
> >
> > Imagine all the great networking code that's in REBoL would be there, but
> > there would be no "listen". You would be offered a /Network version for
> > just a $250 (cause, you know "listen", that's for servers, right?).
>
> Jano, I am probably one who will pay for /Command, but you are right in one
> thing - the way it is (and other languages offer this as standard feature
> for free), we seem to end with numerous platform incompatible workarounds,
> small utils (gates listening on one side to rebol, executin/calling the
> stuff on another side), so the result will be much more bloat, chaos,
> whatever ...
>
> I was thinking about it for some time, if really RT don't want to move
> /Shell or /Library into /Core for free, what about open source project? We
> could probably implement multiplatform /Shell or even /Library ourselves. I
> know it would require us still to run separate util, but the aproach would
> be standard for all platform rebollers. I've never implemented C low level
> stuff, but hey - in Delphi league language calling external app is the case
> for just one line of code ('run in Visual Objects for e.g.). Doesn't realy
> seem worth some 250 USD. That's also reason why I suggested per component
> pricing. Maybe payint some 30USD for /Core + /Shell component would make
> most of us happy, if we don't need to pay for /Library or /ODBC at the same
> time .... But I don't think something is gonna change soon, so if some
> clever C coder would like to start such project, we could implement external
> util simulating /Shell or even /Library behavior ...
>
> PS: I think it should not be considered as a step against RT, I just think
> opposite - current state of things mean most of us will not probably buy the
> functionality for some > 250 USD. And it means current state of things is
> limiting REBOL usage and acceptance in computing world ...
>
> ... just a thought ...
>
> Cheers,
> -pekr-
>
> >
> > I hope you get the idea. I'm not saying I don't want to pay for anything,
> > nor trying to state anything bad about REBoL. This is about something
> > else...
> >
> > Jano
> >
>
