People like me are a pest and I know it. I am nowhere near being a REBOLer, but I am extremely impressed by what l= ittle I do know.
I have come up from REXX, I script occassionally and only when I need som= ething done, it can be anywhere between 6 months to a year or two between= projects. Relearning a language is a major problem, hence the simplicity= of REXX is a great asset for that language as well as its natural limit.= I can see REBOL doing both and doing it well, mostly because of the power= of dialecting. REBOL is full-on, especially with the datatypes, and I admit I just can't= really get some pretty simple stuff, for instance I still can't really g= et my head around blocks (how stupid does that make me!). My suggestion is REBOL-SIMPLE as a very simple dialect of REBOL resemblin= g REXX and heavily Function based, but using as many characteristics of t= rue REBOL to make transition from it, to the real stuff, as seamless as p= ossible. A data-type-less language where as far as the user is concerned every var= iable is a string (using the functions themselves to sort things out). I = would also suggest versions of stem-variables as a simple way to manipula= te related data. There are a few things I can suggest, but the idea is ju= st make it simple (ie every "do" has an "end", every "if" etc.,. simople = and clear often means verbose scripts). To most of you this will sound like nonsense and just a useless suggestio= n by a tangental supporter. In the end I will cope with REBOL, I have no = doubt of that. However, REBOL needs to recruit users who are not scriptor= s or programmers in any form, it will become popular if it supplies simpl= e tools to do simple things that easily leads to using REBOL in more comp= lex ways. >From what I can work out a new dialect, well designed, could do the trick= . Greg Schofield, Perth Australia -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
