A few months ago, but I just came across it. Pretty significant milestone for Red.
Doesn’t Red still require Rebol to compile?
yep, they’ve been concentrating on other stuff from what i gather
So, what’s cool about Red?
since red is heavily inspired by rebol, much of the “what’s cool” carries over from what was (is) so cool about rebol. my personal favourite feature is the small, portable and extremely capable runtime. think about the way applications are now being shoehorned into a web browser, and imagine if someone had made a browser equivalent that was optimised for that use case. now imagine further that that someone really cared about executable size, and managed to pack a language interpreter, gui engine, network stack, etc. into a < 1 MB binary, and that it furthermore made common applications easy to write because there is so much functionality in the runtime that they get for free.
i think rebol lost out on a lot of mindshare by not being open source until it was too late; i would have liked to see it become the default quick scripting language for small gui apps (visual basic, tcl/tk and python all tried, but none of them quite succeeded in that either; as far as i can see, the niche is yet to be satisfactorily filled)
how rebol is different is a good starting point, followed by red’s own about page.
Wow, this sounds very interesting. Thanks for explaining! I did not know much about Rebol, and especially like the slogan on Rebol’s homepage:
Most software systems have become needlessly complex. We rebel against that complexity, fighting it with the most powerful tool available, language itself.
Red’s feature list sounds amazing:
by not being open source until it was too late;
Even now, it is not fully opensource. Only the core is opensource. The gui part is not. One question I have is, is the core (the opensourced part) sufficient for building Red?
Seeing as how it builds itself when you download it for the first time, I’ll assume yes. :)