Talk:REBOL/Archive 1

This is an interesting start.
It's difficult to cover all the facets of REBOL, from the different types (Command, View, Core, Base, etc).

I was thinking adding in some basic discussion of blocks and the datatypes of REBOL would be in order.

Good work, though, people, who ever you all are.

Townbully 22:44, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Too many buzzwords
This article is so full of buzzwords and abstractions that I have no idea what is going on. What is Rebol's sweet spot? Who uses it? How do you write a loop, if you do? The "see also" references seem not at all related, either. 12.206.192.225 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long?
As much as this article was a very interesting and absorbing read, I don't think the last 45 minutes I spent learning a comprehensive list of elements available in the type system really belong here. By then, I should've followed a "see also" link to a proper tutorial after reading some initial blurb about rebol. If I say to my non-techy boss "I'm implementing my solution in REBOL" and gave him a link to this article, he would come out still none-the-wiser about why.

Proposal for section for REBOL syntax
The article surprisingly doesn't speak about the syntax of REBOL itself and strongly requires it. If no one is interested, I think I will write and put one up. cassa (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice additions, cassa
Thanks for taking care of the article. I like your contributed text, it helps to clarify the article a lot. OTOH, see the above request for basic examples, so I don't think the removal of the "Examples" section was a good idea. I hope you don't mind that I (accepting your contributions) rearranged the text to not duplicate informations and make a dictinction between syntactic and semantic issues.

Notes: It is interesting, that the case insensitivity of REBOL is not a syntactic feature, but rather a semantic enhancement: same? 'a+a 'A+A ; yields false

Citation: "Words are dynamically-scoped..." - According to the sources mentioned in the article it is not true and you didn't provide any reference stating otherwise, so I consider the statement unsourced

Citation: "...dynamically typed variables..." - according to the source you mentioned it isn't variables that "are dynamically typed", but rather the language, so I consider this unsourced as well

Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that I made a good bunch of mistakes, thanks for picking them out. The problem I see in the article - for removed the Examples Section, is that [| It reads like a text-book. It goes a bit too deep explaining the features of the REBOL(/Core) such as the list of datatypes, dialects and table concerning similarities between parse dialect and PEG -- all of which are better put into the REBOL wikibook. For this reason I also feel the sections 7 and 8 should be removed and referred to in the 'Dialects' section, for they are not the feature of the language but a "library feature". On the other hand, the "Do Dialect" is the default dialect and implemented in the interpreter and so shouldn't be forked into a section. [[User:Leaflord|leaflord]] (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re the textbook style: Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I reduced the datatype list to include just the most important ones (mentioned in the article).
 * dialects - this is a unique feature; hard to understand without examples (at least for me); I reduced the list to include only the most important examples
 * similarities between Parse dialect and PEG: they are there to list expression types and clarify their relation to the WP:PEG article, where a reader can find detailed informations. It would be unnecessarily hard for a reader to "detect" the relation on his own and successfully relate these two articles otherwise.
 * {they are not the feature of the language but a "library feature"} - the dialects described in the article are a language feature, exactly like the Do dialect (the Do dialect wouldn't even work without having them "available"). E.g. the main dialect actually is the Data definition and exchange dialect - this is the syntax of REBOL, without it the interpreter wouldn't be able to work at all.
 * Code examples - not a tutorial, I intentionally included very short samples illustrating the notions from the article. Since the dialecting support is crucial, the examples need to illustrate this. Some examples illustrate the Do dialect properties mentioned in the article (comparison and assignment); maybe the multiple assignment is not necessary and can be removed?; the Recursive function example illustrates the support for functional programming, but maybe the nonrecursive function definition illustrates that sufficiently?; the Hello World example is "ubiquitous"; the If example is quite unique to the language (as mentioned in the note); the cycle example was explicitely asked for above; the parse function is exactly as needed for the interpreter to work as is the do function; the Quine example illustrates the homoiconicity of the language and the VID example describes the only nonnative dialect (i.e. a dialect written in REBOL, but implemented in the interpreter, exactly like the other mentioned dialects). Do you think the explanation why the samples are included should be added to them?

Sorry I couldn't respond sooner: On a sidenote, the article is missing a link to the REBOL wikibook and a "Limitations" section. leaflord (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It still feels long but oh well..
 * I know that dialects are difficult to understand -- I'm a "sporadic REBOL coder" and I found the concept difficult to grasp at first as well. However, IMO citing examples to explain falls into Wikibooks section; like the explanation in the [| main website].
 * I'm actually a bit confused about how to treat the PEG section. As I said, maybe it's better put into the REBOL wikibook.
 * I understood what you were saying. What I meant was that, other than the "do" dialect, the "view" dialect and others are not vital for the proper functioning of the REBOL interpreter. So it is mentioned that the "do" dialect is the 'native' or 'default' dialect used by the REBOL interpreter, and the "Do dialect" is better renamed to 'REBOL semantics'.
 * Personally; I think it's best to look at other programming language articles such as Ruby  or  Haskell  and have the section designed similar to them..

Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * explain dialects: I am trying to make a distinction between explaining what REBOL dialects are - which should be in WP and how to implement a REBOL dialect/how to use a REBOL dialect, which clearly is a textbook matter
 * REBOL wikibook and PEG: I don't think it is a pure REBOL matter, it just relates two WP articles to give the reader another perspective/source of informations, which may not be necessary in a REBOL-only related wikibook...
 * dialects that are vital: certainly, the VID dialect is not vital for the REBOL/Core interpreter. However, the REBOL/View interpreter wouldn't be REBOL/View interpreter without it. OTOH, the Data exchange dialect is vital for any REBOL interpreter (since it is the syntax of REBOL); the Script spec. dialect is vital for any REBOL interpreter (without it the interpreter wouldn't be able to process REBOL scripts), the Function spec. dialect is vital (without it the interpreter wouldn't support functional programming), Parse dialect is vital (it is used by the interpreter to recognize REBOL syntax, and without it REBOL wouldn't support dialecting)...
 * Rebol semantics == Do dialect I reserve to disagree with this, every dialect has its own semantics in REBOL. If the statement were true, then REBOL wouldn't support free use/construction of any dialect a user wants to define. Therefore I cannot see Parse and the dialecting support as "unnecessary" for REBOL, when they in fact are the main reason for REBOL to exist. The Data exchange dialect of REBOL can easily (as demonstrated many times) replace e.g. XML text etc. for purposes like data exchange, storage, etc., i.e. a purpose different than programming.
 * Other languages: yes, inspiration is useful, OTOH, I am skeptical about an inspiration on "how to explain what REBOL dialects are";-); just compared the Ruby page: 44% bigger with bigger examples too
 * REBOL wikibook: the link is present, you must have missed it
 * the Limitations section: looks like a good idea

I think changes to the current wiki article are best delayed till there are more contributors. Anyways.. I didn't notice the wikibook as it was in the links section while for some articles it's at the start of page :( leaflord (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly complaining about the section concerning dialects; but the other sections detailing the dialects..
 * You're speaking of different aspects of different products. The article for instance doesn't mention VID Dialect nor the function dialect but is long. REBOL/Core is common in all versions of REBOL and the "do" and "function" dialects form the core of the language. script specification is necessary for writing scripts, but REBOL isn't only about scripting. "parse" is a dialect to define dialects, thus better merged into the Dialects section.. All in all I'm suggesting the article cover only the rebol syntax, semantics and evaluation....
 * Of course we differ in our judgements, that much is obvious. I'm not saying parsing is unnecessary for REBOL, but that it can deal with lesser coverage in the wiki article.
 * No no - I'm not talking about explanation of dialects, but as to how the examples section can be rewritten.. As for the size of the page, that's also because the article has a few more sections and that Ruby language is relatively more complex...

Significance?
As someone who has never heard of REBOL (or, at least, can't remember ever hearing of it), I think the lead here is pretty bad. At a minimum, I'd expect it to explain the significance of the language, and give some real-world examples of its use. Is it used in anything I or anyone else actually use? Although the article is too long for me to read right now, I skimmed it and didn't see that mentioned elsewhere either. --Steven Fisher (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone with previous programming experience only in BASIC, and looking to learn a new more web-able language, I agree that this article is too formal and austere - it would have completely put me off taking any interest in Rebol at all, if I had not first stumbled upon the tutorial for absolute beginners and the tutorial for kids. 78.146.204.147 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Significance?
Thanks for suggesting the lead improvement. The poor lead contents was my fault. To improve it I added informations analogical to informations found in leads of other programming language articles. OTOH, I do not think, that the answers to questions: "Is it used in anything I or anyone else actually use?" or "real-world examples of use" belong to the lead. To examples: Cassa removed some examples, which I did not succeed to put back in, since a WP bot was against my reintroduction of sample e-mail addresses (not of real persons), but that is a problem of artificial intelligence, how can a bot discern an example e-mail address from a real one? Hope, that you find the lead better now. Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Significance/notability always belongs in the lead. If it isn't notable, the article doesn't really belong. As someone who knows nothing about the language and hasn't done an outside of article search, it doesn't seem notable to me. Don't take this criticim too harshly, I'm just trying to point out a place where the article really needs to be improved. Steven Fisher (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to explain the principles. Compared to e.g. the WP:Ruby article lead, I do not see what is missing. Do you think, that the WP:Ruby article can be a subject to the same criticism? Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. just checked the WP:Haskell lead with a similar result Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

p.p.s Checked the WP:Lead article and improved the lead in accordance with the principles stated therein Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a reviewer, and I'm not comparing this article to others. I'm only asking what the significance is to help improve the article. If I knew what it was, I would simply add it myself. :) Steven Fisher (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

REBOL edits
"I have removed large parts of Rebol, and cleaned up and tagged the article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising an organisation or business, and we are not writing a manual here. Could you please familiarise yourself with some of our policies and guidelines (they are linked from the welcome template above) before continuing. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)"

The notability tag
All the sources below (used as references in the article):


 * Roberts, Ralph (2000). REBOL for Dummies. Hungry Minds. ISBN: 0764507451.
 * Goldman,E., Blanton, J. (2000). REBOL: The Official Guide. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media. ISBN-10 : 007212279X.
 * Auverlot, Olivier (2001). Rebol Programmation. Eyrolles. ISBN10 : 2-212-11017-0.
 * Auverlot, Olivier (2007). Rebol - Guide du programmeur.
 * In English: Auverlot, Olivier, Wood, Peter W.A. (2009). Rebol - A programmer's guide.

are reliable secondary sources, i.e. "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".

Other sources that were used in the article:


 * Sassenrath, Carl. The REBOL scripting language. Dr. Dobb's portal. - the author is the designer of REBOL, but the publisher is independent and not associated with REBOL, so it is yet another secondary source (although, in this case, even the usage as a primary source would do, since it was used as a source of the designer's quote)
 * REBOL Technologies. What is REBOL? - is a primary source used to establish the pronunciation
 * The REBOL Programming wikibook is a tertiary source, which, according to the WP:Reliable sources "may be used to give overviews or summaries"

When I consider just the above mentioned reliable secondary sources, and sum up the pages: 480 + 731 + 476 + 260 + 6 = 1953, a question remains: "Is the notability tag justified by WP standards?"

Answer

 * Wow .. quite a post .. I'll try to answer them:
 * 1) Notability - If I look at the statements in the text which are referenced, all of the linked references are on Rebol domains, or on, and that is really a bad one, on wikibooks. On each of them: 1) rebol server, 2) Rebol for dummies ... 3a) a statement which appears in a book, that is not sourcing, 4) describing a function, 5) wikibooks, 3b, 6) and 7) describing a function, 8) from rebol site.  These are not statements that are giving notability, they describe.  Software manuals don't make it notable, professional reviews do (but the fact that there is a Rebol for dummies does indicate notability.  So question if the notability tag is suitable .. guess so.
 * 2) Prim. Sources. - As I said, much is linked to rebol sites and manuals ..
 * 3) New articles - If the subjects are notable enough, indeed. But we are not an internet directory, so the rule is not 'if it is not notable enough for an article, then we link to it outside'.
 * 4) Syntax - Not in this way, if I (re-)read that section, I could indeed have left the first two sentences, but the rest is more manual like/list of features. I would have expected a description of how the syntax would looks like, not a list of it.  Comparing to other pages on wikipedia is not always good (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).
 * 5) Again it is a manual for the dialects.
 * 6) Quote - Yep, it could have been descriptive, and this would then be a reference for it.
 * 7) See also - The 'languages with similar objective' is also out of the scope, putting them in a see also is better, using them in a text or in the intro (Rebol has similar objectives as Boo and XL) would have been better. If these terms are not used in the article, then those are maybe more suitable.
 * '8') reordered dialects - it now starts with 'REBOL users can define their own dialects, reusing any existing REBOL word and giving it a specific meaning in that dialect' .. that seems to me a very good start, if I was going to use Rebol, then that is perfect intro info. If you start with 'An example of REBOL's dialecting abilities can be seen with the word return.' .. ????  What are dialects?  Why does it have that?
 * Sorry, I looked at this with a non-specialist programmer eye (still, I do use programming languages as bot operator on wikipedia), and to me this article looked for big parts like a manual. I hope this explains a bit more.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I looked at this with a non-specialist programmer eye (still, I do use programming languages as bot operator on wikipedia), and to me this article looked for big parts like a manual. I hope this explains a bit more.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I disagree with your notability and "primary sources" statement based on the fact, that the source books are "books published by respected publishing houses" as required by Verifiability.


 * I am not questioning that the references are reliable, and I already say, that having a 'Rebol for dummies' probably means that the subject is notable. However, the statements that are referenced, and the references on those do not give them notability.  If e.g. I have a manual written by a source not affiliated with the company, and I say 'the machine can be switched on using the power button(ref to "this machine for dummies")', then that does not make the machine notable.  However, a statement like 'Rebol is widely used by e.g. Big Company 1(ref), Big Company 2(ref), has been subject of several studies(refs) and descriptions(ref to the same "this machine" for dumies)' would (this is an ugly sentence, but I hope you get the idea).
 * Copying this there is fine, of course (we can even continue the discussion there). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Something that is important for everyone interested in this language is the fact that the free versions of the interpreter dont't run any external program other than the system's default browser. It also seems the first two "free software alternatives" are rather dead (not updated on sourceforge for more than 5 years). 217.235.11.183 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is now comparatively much sparser than other programming language articles. Other articles might not be portrayed as ideal but they have a lot more visitors as well as contributors... leaflord (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External programs
That is a property of the R2/Core interpreter. It is not a property of the language, since it is neither the case of Orca, R2/Command, R2/SDK, nor the case of R3, whose can run external programs.

What makes a language notable?
(to Dirk and Steven)

The question, whether a language is used by a Big Company X, Big Company Y, etc. is largely irrelevant to the notability of the language.

As a proof, see e.g. the Simula language, which pioneered the object-oriented programming paradigm and is a predecessor of e.g. C++, Java or C# in that sense. Similarly, for the notability of ALGOL is irrelevant, whether it is used by a Large Company X, etc. The fact, that it pioneered the structured programming using the  block construct made it a predecessor of virtually any programming language supporting the imperative structured programming paradigm. I can continue with Lisp notable for pioneering functional programming, garbage collection, tree data structures, dynamic typing, etc.

In that sense, the most notable property of REBOL is its dialecting as recognized by the majority of article sources. Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't really doubt the notability, as there is a 'REBOL for dummies', a series of books which is quite well known. But the issues that would give this subject notability are not referenced for that (in fact, most references that were there in the large version I cut down were to specific parts of the programming in manuals, not to general statements.  In the intro, there is the sentence 'It combines the properties of a data exchange language and programming language to introduce the concept of dialecting: small, optimized, domain specific languages for code and data.'  Having an (independent) reference (or a couple) that say that that is a quite remarkable feature of REBOL would immediately solve the problem (and I guess the 'REBOL for dummies' book will say something about this).  Would this solve that issue?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I am just trying to put it in. Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I removed almost all primary source references, it seems to justify the removal of the WP:primary sources tag. Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No usable free Implementation
Freebell: (updated 6 years ago)

R-Sharp: (updated 2003)

RebGUI: is a REBOL/View clone not a interpreter

ORCA: main programmer left the project  (last updated 2007)

I think it is a important information that there is no full-featured free interpreter available, making this language propertiary in practice. 217.235.9.117 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: REBOL provides many features that will make external calls not necessary at the beginning. But sooner or later everyone will want to use external programms. The limitation of the free REBOL/Core is pretty well hidden (in the FAQ item 51 ). This makes REBOL somwhat a educational/toy language that has to be paid for any serious/advanced use. 217.235.9.117 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re no usable free implementation
(to 217.235.9.117)

This is not a forum to discuss this issue (we are discussing the article, not a particular problem you probably don't want to solve, otherwise you would have asked at a more appropriate forum). Just a hint (for a Windows user, if you use Linux, do it by analogy): in REBOL/View 2.7.6 (since it looks to me, that you do not want to use either Orca or R3) you can call the CreateProcessA Windows API function to make any external call you wish. Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Peta, I was talking about the article too. The links to the free software alternatives will not be written if the projects are dead. 217.235.33.72 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. The "links" are a different matter. No problem to remove them. So, you suggest to remove the RSharp and Freebell references because they are not active? Done. Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The primary sources tag
The question "Is the primary sources tag justified by WP standards?" is closely related to the above mentioned notability question. Does it take into account the existence of the above mentioned reliable secondary sources?

I apologize for inconveniences caused by my introduction of any other (not one of the above mentioned) reference.

Creation of new WP articles
Do I understand correctly, that your idea when replacing the links to the free software Freebell, Orca, R-Sharp and RebGUI interpreters was to suggest that there should be articles about them? (My idea was, that the language is notable enough to be covered by an article, while the individual interpreters are not notable enough to justify stand-alone WP articles for them?)

Removal of the Syntax section
It is hard for me to imagine a language article not mentioning its syntax (I did not find any WP programming language article not mentioning its syntax.) Are you sure, that such a section really does not belong to the discussed article?

Removal of dialect sections
The dialects mentioned in the article were used to explain "What REBOL dialects are?/How they look?" - which I see as an encyclopedic matter worth mentioning to an uninitiated reader.

As opposed to other languages, REBOL is more like "a bunch of dialects" used for creating other dialects, than like a "one monolithic language". This information is currently missing from the article. By removing the sections, did you mean, that such an information does not belong to the Wikipedia?

Removal of the designer quote
Your reason for removing the designer quote: "does not explain dialects" does not take into account, that the removed quote characterized dialects as (by the language designer's opinion) the most notable feature of the language ("...[REBOL's] greatest strength is the ability to easily create domain-specific languages or dialects"), which looks as an unfair treatment of an uncontroversial and well sourced statement.

The See also section
The contents of the See also section you put in is controversial. (See the article discussion page, where a reader points out at the fact, that the languages mentioned are actually unrelated.) Wouldn't a list of related topics, such as:


 * Dialecting
 * Domain-specific_language
 * Language-oriented programming
 * Linguistic method
 * Parsing expression grammar

be much more relevant to the article subject?

Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. the reverted order in the dialect section looks worse than the original, since the first part originally explained the importance of dialects (now missing), the second explained how dialects look, and the third stated, that users can create their own dialects. The reverted order first states, that users can create their own dialects, without explaining what are dialects. Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Description too dry and formal and offputting
Its as if the Motorcycle article was written like this: "A motorcycle is an electro-mechanical device which transforms the chemical energy of hydrocarbons into kinetic energy....". If I had not found the beginners tutorials beforehand, then this article would suggest that Rebol was only some very narrow language suited to only obscure technical uses. Some paragraphs ought to be put in at the start that show it to be of more general purpose, and also suited to the beginner or casual user.

The language in the first two paragraphs is too technical and abstract - because people without a degree in computing will not understand the terms, they quickly get the message that it is not for them and move on. 78.147.27.136 (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because Wikipedia doesn't aim to be a tutorial, it's an encyclopedia. If you look at articles for other programming languages they'll be the same.. This appeal to beginners is the motive of Wikibooks and Simple English wikipedia.. Also, what you described is an engine. And the article for Engine begins thus:
 * "An engine is a machine that produces mechanical force and motion from another form of energy (e.g. a fuel source, compressed air, or electricity).[1] It is also referred to as a prime mover."
 * You get the picture.. But I will agree, I was initially deterred from REBOL by the wikipedia article as well. Thankfully, I decided to check the website itself. leaflord (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles for other programming languages are not all the same: see BASIC or GW-BASIC. The Wikipedia articles should be written to be understood by the average person when possible, and just treating it as a logic exercise for nerds only is incorrect. 84.13.180.244 (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you give an example of how the language could be improved? As a computer nerd I'm ill-placed to judge.  For instance, how would you improve the following paragraph?


 * Differing from C or other programming languages the data exchange dialect does not consist of declarations, statements, expressions or keywords. A valid data exchange dialect text stream is a tree data structure consisting of blocks (the root block is implicit, subblocks are delimited by square brackets), parens (delimited by round brackets), strings (delimited by double quotes or curly brackets suitable for multi-line strings; caret notation is used for unprintable characters), url's, e-mail addresses, files, paths or other composite values. Unlike ALGOL blocks, REBOL blocks are composite values similar to quoted s-expressions in Lisp.


 * To me that's a very meaningful paragraph and I would find it very difficult to explain to somebody who hadn't the patience to click the links to find the meanings of concepts like C, delimiter, s-expression, Tree (data structure) and whatnot. --TS 00:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to try to imagine how other people, not just yourself, are going to read it. The mistake in the article is to put the detailed technical (=only meaningful to people who have studied computing) stuff right at the beginning. Wikipedia is (or if that is not policy then it ought to be) not solely addressed to people with detailed technical knowledge but also to the more general reader, so a less technical beginning would be better. Something like the description given here http://www.rebol.com/what-rebol.html should go at the start - not too technical to frighten people away. Put your very technical stuff later in the article. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The description you mention is not an appropriate example, since:

Ladislav Mecir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC).
 * The language used in the description is not as neutral as the Wikipedia policy requires
 * All neutral informations from the description can be easily found in the article, mainly at the start

Why on Earth did RebolTutorial.com disappeared ?
This is a tutorial website that is on Rebol.com homepage and each time it is added on Wikipedia it is retired, why ?
 * Because it's not official and it's a blog. --Cyber cobra (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey it's not a blog as per content, it only uses blog technically as Content Management System, as for content it contains tutorials not for blah blah blah on how I drink my cofee in the morning.

As for being official, t's the reference tutorial that is on the homepage of the OFFICIAL Rebol site.

And since when Wikipedia only references official sites ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.163.245 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - why does the link to the Rebol tutorial keep getting removed? Leave it alone. Being official or not is irrelevant. Update: in case they disapear again, here are the links deleted: http://www.rebol.com/ http://re-bol.com/rebol.html http://www.rebol.com/what-rebol.html "REBOL rebels against software complexity. Do it in 1MB, not 200MB." 78.149.161.55 (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility and specifiability of REBOL
Mdupont: "I would like ask if any of the open source versions are even 100% compatible"

The article contained the answer before you tried to put in the results of your own research. The fact is, that REBOL is designed as a language supporting dialecting. By definition, no two dialects can be 100% compatible. The dialect authors - any "ordinary user" can create new REBOL dialect(s) - may influence both the semantic as well as the syntactic properties of their dialect, as mentioned in the article. This is intended and it is the main reason why the language was designed, as the designer's quote cited in the article illustrates. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)