World: r3wp

what I have seen a lot through the years about people suggesting 
things (me included) on how to improve REBOL, is the tendency to 
ask for things from other languages.

I have somehow changed my perspective in that I find myself asking 
things like, why should I be doing that in REBOL.

I like protect-system, + words like add-archive . Thats similar to 
namespaces, but 'helps better.

many things are added to other languages, not because they are usefull, 
or where included by design.  but because the language eventually 
outgrew its original design or because new users request feature 
XYZ so many times it felt like a good idea to add it.

I think instead of trying to change how rebol thinks we should concentrate 
on making it deliver on all of its promises and adding actuall features 
to it.

I agree. Toi master a language, i have to master the core-features. 
And if there are a lot of them, that slows down. And i can do the 
same things with current features in a slightly diferent way, i am 
lazy, so keep core small :)

people want modules, some dont.   some need them, some can't stand 
them.

I think that REBOL right now is in a hard place.  It wants to stay 
pure... yet it wants adoption.

modules are nothing more then isolation of contexts ... sometimes, 
more strict aproach does not hurt, if you want it and need it ...

I only used the modules as an example of what REBOL has to deal with 
right now as its questioning its identity.

Is namespacing the only way to do it?

I wish modules existed, hell, that's why I coded slim which handles 
code modules almost 90% exactly like Carl had planned them.

but I don't think the language should change in a way that it depends 
on them.

Volker,  many times I thought I mastered rebol but then I found many 
features that was hidden behide even ONE word.

exactly... which points to one thing...

documentation.

How much does it hurt not to know about this features?

I think I know what trouble novices have though .... when you look 
at C or java-script like languages, it is clear what is happening, 
even if you don't know exact meaning of function name ... but imo 
with rebol - novice is looking into longer sequences of lots of english 
words, without parens, so the programmer can't immediatelly map to 
what is done and when .... :-)

just like trying to understand a german sentence  ;-)

A thing that hurts is this copy-thing. You have to know it, that 
effct occurs everywhere. Thats what i call a core-"feature".

but its a feature. its not a bug.

it has to be made clear to newbies from the onset.

(i meant "hurts if you dont know it")

I was burned just as bad in python and its the other way around.

imo every novice will go into the same kind of trouble with references 
issue .... but iirc Core docs in pdf explained it even graphically, 
so I would urge novices to learn those facts first ...

but the documentation, when I looked, made it very clear.

Or multithreading would be a core-feature, or language-feature. If 
it is present, you have to expect random changes everywhere.

Volker, not much harm, I mean Rebol not showing everything at first 
look so you don't need worry about mastering everything

if you don't need it - don't start other threads then :-)

I dont think so.  python does multithreading and its just something 
you start once you need it.

No, not everything! Thats the point, that it works with some basic 
knowledge and the rest can be ignored.

(althouh they really suck in python)

Pekr, all the libs will do it. Or will maybe. Be prepared or burned.

what will all libs do? what libs?

The löibs in all that namespaces!

multithread. And change your uncopied data.

wasn't it mentioned that make task! will invoke OS thread, but no 
shared code sections?

(depends on implementation. we where starting with blindly copying 
other languages without rebolizing them, as i understand

where did we start copying other languages?

A rebolized or erlangized multithreading is something else.

so far I can see only logical additions to get into programming into 
large ...

Maxim: "what I have seen a lot through the years about people suggesting 
things (me included) on how to improve REBOL, is the tendency to 
ask for things from other languages."

Maxim: "I have somehow changed my perspective in that I find myself 
asking things like, why should I be doing that in REBOL"

I would add "how to do them in rebol". In case of namespaces, maybe 
a more dialected approach could be usefull.

but I also think things could be added as features, if we want any 
adoption or PITL, but rebol itself should not depend on them.

because it makes sense and because you want? What is the point in 
being different just for the sake of being different? Rebol's design 
is different, and adding namespaces, tasking, better event model, 
etc. does not ruin Rebol principles ....

modules add something we cannot DO in rebol, unless you become guru.

making a dialect is not trivial, however you want to approach it. 
 you must "understand" REBOL to a certain extent.

If i have to learn them it ruins rebol. if rebol is not dependent 
upon, it does not.

A parse-rule is not that different from a set of functions. And the 
way to write them could even be changed closer to functions.