This is the second of several articles I’m going to write about the REBOL programming language. To learn more about it, you can visit rebol.com. But my hope is to demystify some of its strengths and weaknesses in a way that their website currently does not, so if you read what I write first then it might help.
(UPDATE 12-Dec-2012: Rebol version 3 is now open source under the Apache 2.0 license, so all those disclaimers I used to have in my Rebol articles about not getting attached to a proprietary language are no longer applicable! Use it without hesitation!!!)
REBOL’s advocates tout the language as a “rebellion against software complexity”. But what does that actually mean? Ruby and Python advocates ask how it differs from other modern interpreted languages. What they’ll get back usually boils down to “the interpreters for every other language, plus their libraries, plus the source code you feed into them, are too many bytes for what the end result achieves.”
I do poke a bit of fun of their obsession with size, by comparing it to Saturday Night Live’s “Tiny Elvis”. In the sketch, Nicholas Cage is shown dressed as a miniature Elvis who points to common household items and remarks about how “huge” they are:
Tiny Elvis: Hey, man.. look at that salt shaker, man. That is huge! Man, I’ll never be able to use all that salt, man. That is way too much!
Red: Yeah, that’s a big salt shaker, Elvis!
Tiny Elvis: Sure is huge, man.
Sonny: That’s hilarious, Elvis!
Red: Score another one for the Tiny E!
Tiny Elvis: Well, I’m just saying it’s a big salt shaker, that’s all.
Red: [ laughing ] There he goes again! That’s why he’s the Tiny E.
I’ve envisioned REBOL’s architect Carl Sassenrath miniaturized at a modern workstation. He’d be bemoaning the misapplication of the hardware, as “Tiny REBOL”:
Tiny REBOL: Whoa now. Look at that Firewire drive, 750 Gigabytes! I run in 750 Kilobytes. What would *I* ever do with all those bytes?
Fork: [ laughing ] Man, you’re going tonight, Tiny R!
Despite my friendly kidding, I agree that size can be a good barometer of when complexity has been managed well. It’s not the only indicator and shouldn’t be taken to extremes—such as by giving variables short (but unclear) names. Yet if a very small system can do what you’d think a much larger one would be needed for, it bears a closer look.
Plus, I do think REBOL can be rightfully called a revolution against most of today’s programming methods. In this article I’m going to try and tackle the philosophical basis for why I believe it.