Max thankyou for your reply. I have no doubt about learning REBOL myself and properly (in the end). Ju= st a small dipping into it proved its worth.
I am not convinced I am right in this and your response is a valid one ( = I do wish there was more explanation/documentation about the pecularities= of REBOL at the conceptual level. I am sure I have read before a descrit= ption of it as an expression language, but in a practical sense it still = has not gelled - I keep falling into command/function syntax understandin= gs). I suppose, on reflection, what I am getting may have little to do with pr= ogramming languages per se, but people gaining more control over their e= lectronic environment. REBOL has this control feature in spades. That is what exicites me about = it. But my view is that thise who need to get more control over their com= puter environment fall into broad categories: 1) Natural or (self)taught programmers. 2) Scriptors, who in many regards could be seen as primitive versions of = the former, or extremely developed users. 3) Experienced users who understand things, but never really dip much fu= rther into things. 4) Oridinary users, who range from niave step by step program users to ve= ry proficient application operators who use what is prepared for them, bu= t often have, due to their experience, very clear ideas on how things sho= uld be done to make things easier and more efficient. REBOL very much suits 1 & 2. However,category 3 for me is the vital one, as they are the natural condu= its for the experience of those that could be classed as 4.=20 For me who is really in 2. All I need is a little time and experience wit= h REBOL, I have never doubted my ability to get my head around it eventua= lly. At the moment, because of other priorities I just made a conscious d= ecision to wait on R3 and then get into it properly. It parallels my deci= sion to not learn C years ago; an estimate of time and labour required to= become proficient, the level of foreknowledge needed to achieve some of = things I had in mind, meant an investment in dedicated time that I simply= did not have. Many people are in the same position. But it is more than that. In a sens= e this is not about REBOL or any other language, nor is it about what peo= ple set as personal priorities. It is more about shifting power downwards= through the categories of comkputer usuage. My view is that applying computers to real world tasks is being constrain= ed by a top heavy approach where category 1 more or less set the paramete= rs for 2,3 and 4. What I believe is that 4, the humble user is a very important person. The= y are the ones simply using computers to get something done. Because they= can do very little else except use what they have in front of them, they= have a resevior of needs that cannot be expressed. Category 3, the more savvy user, because they can manipulate the programm= ing environment, develop all sorts of skills, that 4 calls upon when prob= lems crop up. Category 3, the skilled computer user, is: A) locked out of most applicat= ion programs. B) has no real way to preserve what they know or change the= problems they see. C) Can only perform tricks, D) spends a lot of time p= erforming the same tricks over and over again. Scriptors (2) are cut out of most applications like 3 (this is changing b= ut very slowly), they can occassionally add a script to do something othe= rwise they are more like 3. Shifting the power downwards, the power to actually conrtrol what happens= within the computer, to evolve tasks etc to be easier, more flexible, mo= re effieicnt in use (which is not the same as being efficient code). Need= s a media of expression. REBOL, has the power, and it has dialects and combining these two has soc= ial implications. For the most part category 3 and 2 (by extension) are the social nexus be= tween 4 and 1. If that makes sense - they are positioned to turn whatever= 1 produces into something that really works well for 4, enabling ordinar= y users to express the changes they require and 3 amd 2 to make things ha= ppen. On this basis, I hope people see why REBOL could be vitally important in = lubricating such a shift in computer usuage. It has the power, to elimina= te the big-bloaty fixed application, its environment could go well beyond= mere "custermorization" and running "macros". But there is a kanker also= , a side effect of REBOL not being all that easy. More often than not the problem of adapting computers to doing stuff, as = a productive and not a technical problem. Consists in just two things: i) I have some data that I want to do X with, do X and give it back (best= served with a finction rich environment). ii) I want data added in a sequence, a flow problem - best suited to a GU= I language that has simple conditional controls. IF a =3D X then b =3D Y = type thing. i and ii require a language that essentially allows people to focus on im= mediate problem solving, not writing complex scripts or indeed being very= competant scriptors. A REBOL dialect seems the perfect bridge, but it can't be REBOL as such, = just a slightly REBOLish form of a procedual language (if that is the rig= ht description). REXX had the right mixture for doing this (more or less)= but has progressively become over-stretched (ObjectREXX) like Python. Unlike PYTHON which is a do more by adding more language simplicity is ov= ercome by increasing arcane syntax (to get special things done) and incre= asinging unreadablity - it falls between the chairs, so to speak. REBOL-simple, is just that, simple. To get more from it you go deeper (RE= BOL proper) keeping the simple bit simple, but extending it in a purely a= dditive way. To me this works, not because REBOL needs simplification (it doesn't) but= that categories of users need simplicity in order to express control ove= r their environment and shift things down from the top. Sorry for the long rant. Essentially what I am saying has little to do wi= th REBOL as such, but how REBOL might act to move something else along --= giving users more pratical power over what their computers are doing and= how. Thanks Max. Greg --- Message Received --- From: Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:06:52 -0400 Subject: [REBOL] Re: REBOL-SIMPLE dialect -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
