[tadasv]

Not 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.

[jesperlang]

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

[greggirwin]

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.

[greggirwin]

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.

[vram22]

>I looked at their roadmap and they're planning to support so many different architectures.

Yes, I noticed and was concerned about that too - that they may be taking on too much work. Otherwise I like their goals (apart from this latest news).