Sorry to be late receiving these 2 last entries : but I agree entirely with both of you.
Regards, Gerard P.S. I am now more "at ease" with the naming conventions of REBOL products line but really this could have been simpler from the start - even if it is FUN to get it so (but this is unduly difficult to memorize for the rest of us ...). ================================================================ > Petr Krenzelok wrote: > > > > Yes, it is - but enough is enough imo. Just ask someone from > > external world, what do they know about Rebol? If they even > > recognise it, they are already confused by all the following: > ... > > ... My suggestion is - change Rebol architecture for good, do > > it clever way, allow options and reduce product line - remove > > /Pro and /Command versions - add real components... > > > > Sorry for bringing in different pov, maybe a radical one, but > > that's just me (and those agreeing with me, staying silent ;-) > > And Joel replies as : > > There's a bit of irony here, in that REBOL claims (and delivers, > for the most part) to simplify things that are complicated and > confusing in (some) other languages. Yet many of the things > that are necessary for scaling and for "marketing" have ended up > appearing quite confusing. > > Simplifying the claims/versions/deliverables and exposing some > simple, common mechanisms for extensions/modules would be A > Good Thing IMHO. > -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
