Do they have a plan for staying on the windy side of the SEC, or should US residents stay away?
Red Lang goes blockchain
91–100 of 101 posts
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't go back and edit the spelling error, thanks anyway. I use J daily on my desktop as a calculator, and for more involved calculations. I am a senior project manager/technical designer/business developer at an engineering firm in the their Entertainment department. We do rock concerts, Broadway, film, live events, theme parks, stage machinery, art installation engineering and more. J is like my quicker-than-Exce…
Have you dabbled with Julia [1] before? It sounds like it might be right up your alley. It's not a lisp, but it's very "lispy" in a lot of ways, and it's focused on scientific/numeric computing with an active community focused on the same. The creators also mentioned J as an influence I believe, though I haven't used J myself, so I can't comment on that. [1] https://julialang.org
Yes I have. J and Wasp Lisp are tiny ecosystems, and I like that a lot about them. Julia is trying to be a Matlab replacement and a whole lot more. I'm going to wait until it matures. I'm teetering on Zig and Rust for my C replacement and as a hook into J’s libraries, or a Wasp VM written in Rust.
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#93Not sure what to think of this. Smells like FOMO. I looked at their roadmap and they're planning to support so many different architectures. Adding EVM support seems like adding more complexity to the project just because blockchain. I think something like this is needed for programming on blockchain, but I'd prefer to see a dedicated project instead.
also, documentation seems to have be an after thought. I want to like Red, but the documentation has been so scattered, unorganized and limited, I felt more slowed than I needed to be. Will still keep an eye on Red though, hoping it will improve on that level
It's not an afterthought, but it takes a lot of time and work. The project priorities are driven by the people paying for the work, and it hasn't been a priority for them. We hope the new projects will allow us to improve the situation. In the meantime, telling us what docs are most lacking, or most needed, helps.
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#94Not sure what to think of this. Smells like FOMO. I looked at their roadmap and they're planning to support so many different architectures. Adding EVM support seems like adding more complexity to the project just because blockchain. I think something like this is needed for programming on blockchain, but I'd prefer to see a dedicated project instead.
If you follow Red, you know that avoiding complexity is a primary goal. Each new back end may add some complexity, but it doesn't change the underlying model of how Red is implemented. And I think it will be kind of what you say you want. It is a dedicated project, with the current goal of raising money so a team can focus on that. Think of it as your dedicated project using Red to build the blockchain programming tool. It wouldn't have to be all Red, that's just the best approach in this case.
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#95“but after studying many other ICO, I am convinced now that this is not just a short-lived fad, but a real new model to fund projects, and especially open-source projects related to blockchains.” There’s been quite a few of us suggesting people jump into blockchain just to get funding for more important stuff (e.g. language-level tooling or libraries) they’ll produce as part of the coin offering they sell to investor…
Thanks for the info @nickpsecurity!
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#96I was actually looking at Red in consideration for my next year's personal projects. I'd consider it further if I felt it was more complete. Perhaps this is a cursory evaluation, but it feels like the emphasis is to use what's built in as much as possible. Given a lack of json (yes, there is an implementation out there, but not built in), and still pending linux GUI support, it still feels too unfinished for me to in…
Neither of those features have been a priority, but both will eventually be built in. We'll wait for you. :^)
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#97Curious - How is Red sustained, who currently supports it? Or what does the roadmap look like for this to be a five-year sustainable project? Edit: They seem to address this down in the blog post, with the creation of a RCT token. What is the incentive for a potential backer to buy this token?
@ZenoArrow is correct. Nenad Rakocevic supported himself, with modest donations and other work, until he could raise the initial investment money. He and another full time developer have been working on it for a few years, using those resources. This is the next phase, with one goal being to grow the core team, but also encourage community involvement by being able to reward people.
One incentive for backers is if they want a say in how things are prioritized.
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#98I was hoping the Red project would announce something interesting at the end of the year; but not something as interesting as this.
We live in interesting times.
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who buy into the ICO can influence the roadmap? Isn't that design by committee? (Generally considered a bad idea.)
I imagine it will be useful only for prioritization.
Correct, though we can't predict the future. If somebody throws huge amounts of money at Red they could influence the language. Then it's up to the team and community to decide if it's worth including, or risking a fork. It's open source after all.
Re: Red Lang goes blockchain
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine it will be useful only for prioritization.
Correct, though we can't predict the future. If somebody throws huge amounts of money at Red they could influence the language. Then it's up to the team and community to decide if it's worth including, or risking a fork. It's open source after all.
I dont think that this is a real possibility. Like I cant imagine why they would. And like what's the potential damage here? A new keyword? Slightly better http support than there would be otherwise? What's the danger?