[throwaway7645]

Good to see I'm not the only one that has trouble transitioning from playing with Rebol to actually using it in non-trivial programs. Sure they have a form of OO, but I'm not sure if it is really idiomatic to use it a bunch or if coding should be more like C. I'm prepared for Red zealotry though if they can provide the experience that they're aiming for along with good doc.

[draegtun]

If there's any issue in particular you're having with Rebol then do pop by to either...

* chat - https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/291/rebol

* forum - https://forum.rebol.info/

... and we'll do our best to help.

[throwaway7645]

Thank you for all the help and kindness.

[greggirwin]

Red is not dogmatic about objects, but there is certainly a clear line between idiomatic Red and other code, in a more general sense. That is, you can use objects, or not, and write idiomatic Red. It's all in how you use them. They are most useful in terms of creating namespaces (contexts). When you don't need that, blocks are the more common type to use. There is also a `map!` type, which is a useful type because it has a literal form, like blocks. Of the 3 (block, object, map), only blocks are directly parseable, but objects and maps support reflection.

[throwaway7645]

Thanks again. As a beginner in this language family it would be helpful to see the doc go over this with some examples clarifying your points at some point when y'all are closer to 1.0. I'm probably not the only one who wouldn't know how to architect their code without overusing classes.