[HN Gopher] REBOL Oneliners
___________________________________________________________________
REBOL Oneliners
Author : damir
Score : 58 points
Date : 2020-03-08 19:17 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rebol.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rebol.com)
| superdisk wrote:
| This language just looks super cool. It's a shame it's sort of
| dead. Red (the spiritual successor) isn't ready for production
| yet.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Red is pretty awesome. Last I tried it out, it was not ready
| for graphics work on Linux.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Logo on steroids.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| It's been really active; you can hop on their gitter and get a
| feel for where development is at (the sorts of things that are
| getting attention). I wouldn't use it for a production load,
| but it's ready enough for writing internal or personal tooling
| in.
|
| (And edit to say, I think some of the core team got pretty far
| into the blockchain rabbit hole at some point, so that may have
| derailed more mainstream efforts)
| analognoise wrote:
| Red died the minute they announced they were going to launch
| their own crypto currency.
| praptak wrote:
| It believe it had a restrictive license which was a showstopper
| for a programming language. The current version is Apache(?),
| but it might be too late.
| Izkata wrote:
| First programming language I learned, back around 2000. I still
| use it often for my personal projects.
| haolez wrote:
| Looks a little like FORTH, but with batteries included.
| voldacar wrote:
| The syntax looks kind of odd - it feels a bit like trying to read
| lisp without the parentheses. Seems like a very expressive
| language though based on the number of characters needed to get
| stuff done
| noobdood wrote:
| IIRC I read somewhere that Rebol is homoiconic but not sure.
| Izkata wrote:
| It is. For example, in the third example:
| foreach file load %./ [if not dir? file [write/binary join
| ftp://user:pass@example.com/ file read/binary file]]
|
| Those two sets of [ ] are the block! datatype, which is an
| array-like type. "foreach" is a function that takes an
| identifier and two block!s ("load" returns a block!),
| executing the second for each one in the first.
|
| Quick example showing it: >> something:
| [print val] == [print val] >> foreach val [1 2 3]
| something 1 2 3 >> append something
| [+ 3] == [print val + 3] >> foreach val [1
| 2 3] something 4 5 6
|
| The second example in the oneliners kinda shows this as well,
| but I suppose it's not obvious without knowing more of the
| language. The outer block! is actually a separate dialect
| being passed to the layout function as data, that the layout
| function parses and handles. What's normally thought of as
| rebol is called the "do dialect", because that's how you run
| a block! as code: >> X: [print 1 + 2]
| == [print 1 + 2] >> do X 3 >> X/3 ==
| + >> X/3: to-word {*} == * >> X ==
| [print 1 * 2] >> do X 2
| abrax3141 wrote:
| The idea of a one-liner is sort of silly when applied to
| functional programming. Every lisp expression, for example, no
| matter how long in editor space, is logically a single line.
| jmnicolas wrote:
| To me all (complex) one liners are bad : they're hard to read
| and they don't manage errors.
|
| I'd rather go through 5 lines of simple statements than try to
| decipher a "clever" one liner.
|
| From the fine article : > Open a GUI, read web page, sent it as
| email
|
| You really want to do that in one line ?
| glofish wrote:
| sending someone a link via email is a relatively common task.
|
| why would it be undesirable to write short code that can do
| that?
| samatman wrote:
| It's only silly if you don't apply a reasonable character limit
| in your definition.
|
| I would say < 80 is definitely a one-liner, < 100 is more-or-
| less a one-liner, < 120 is really pushing it. After that,
| you're cheating. Even Java style guides cut you off after 120.
|
| 12 of these "one-liners" fail even the most permissive of these
| criteria, but, y'know, YMMV. None are over 140.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| I'm really encouraged that REBOL has made it to the front page of
| Hacker News. Hopefully that will translate into more contributors
| to the REBOL and Red projects.
| EFruit wrote:
| REBOL and its derivative Red seem like cool languages, but I
| can't get over the fact that it's impossible to bootstrap these
| free software projects because Red requires REBOL 3, which is
| self hosting using REBOL 2, which is proprietary.
| lwb wrote:
| Looks really interesting. Anyone able to get this to work on
| Catalina? I'm getting "bad CPU type in executable" for both the
| PPC and Intel versions.
| adamzegelin wrote:
| PPC definitely won't work on Catalina. PPC support was dropped
| from macOS years ago.
|
| The Intel binary is 32-bit only. Catalina will only run 64-bit
| binaries. $ file rebol rebol: Mach-O
| executable i386
| pmarreck wrote:
| Does anyone else think cutting off 32-bit support basically
| killed off what remained appealing about the Mac that
| differentiated it from being just a "desktop iOS iPad in the
| iCloud ecosystem"?
|
| I lost access to so much cherished stuff that I am currently
| evaluating a switch to Ubuntu 20.04
| mushufasa wrote:
| well, ubuntu is also dropping support for 32-bit. they
| tried to a little while ago and got a lot of backlash so
| they're supporting for a bit longer, but it's only a matter
| of time.
| samatman wrote:
| Of all the tiny papercuts I've suffered on macOS over the
| last five years, I don't miss 32-bit apps at all.
|
| Must have just gotten lucky, but literally nothing stopped
| working when I migrated to a new Catalina machine. Ok I had
| to do some jimmying to get Keybase back, but that wasn't a
| 32/64-bit issue, that was weird kext permissions stuff.
| pampa wrote:
| Why would you even try the PPC version on Catalina? Snow
| Leopard (from 2009) was the last mac os to support ppc.
|
| The intel version is i386. 32bit, which is not supported on
| Catalina either/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-03-08 23:00 UTC)