> (Are Red/Rebol creators seriously claiming that Clojure's syntax is complex?)
The huge paragraph you're responding to refers to the programming stack as a whole. In reference to Clojure, it's including the JVM.
The huge paragraph you're responding to refers to the programming stack as a whole. In reference to Clojure, it's including the JVM.
This clearly states about Clojure that its syntax AND it's procedure of development (another grand claim) introduce said complexity.
That whole write-up is just about as incorrect as it can get:
> Virtually every other well known development tool in popular use is built upon bloated layers of existing technology, [...] Most developers have just never experienced the sort of self dependent architecture,
Never mind that Red is actually implemented in another abandoned proprietary language[0]!
That entire sales pitch is a barefaced lie.
Github's code breakdown by languages for red/red repo:
* Red 83.8%
* Rebol 15.7%
* C 0.2%
* Visual Basic 0.2%
* Java 0.1%
* Shell 0.0%
Only the compiler is implemented in Rebol, the rest, including the interpreter, the consoles, the GUI system and the whole runtime library are implemented in a mix of Red and Red/System. From top of my head, it's about ~25k LOC for the compiler/toolchain (in Rebol) and ~130k LOC for the REPL and runtime library (in Red and Red/System).
The use of Rebol is only for boostrapping the language. The whole Rebol code part will be dropped after 1.0, and the toolchain rewritten in pure Red.
Cool!
Is that a fair and accurate assessment?