[zepto]

This is not the same language.

Readable.red:

  “The ReAdABLE Human Format aims at Agile Documentation by
  making WRITING and READING document easier for End User 
  and Developer alike, while allowing a high degree of 
  flexibility.”

red-lang.org:

  “Red’s ambitious goal is to build the world’s first 
  full-stack language, a language you can use from system
  programming tasks, up to high-level scripting through DSL.
  You've probably heard of the term "Full-Stack Developer". 
  But what is a full-stack Language, exactly?”

[wool_gather]

> a language you can use from system programming tasks, up to high-level scripting through DSL

Swift has this same stated goal. I guess ambition is good, but I really don't understand why you would try to make one tool handle such wildly different use cases. It's like me saying "my handheld electric jigsaw can be used from ripping full plywood sheets, up to cabinetry through luthiery". Well, sure, it can...but it's not actually good at more than one or two of those things.

[zepto]

Why do you think they are different use cases?

The electric jigsaw example seems to illustrate the contrary of what you think it does because as technology advances it actually does make it possible for a tool to cover more use cases effectively. E.g. example an electric jigsaw covers more use cases than a manual hacksaw.

It’s possible to imagine a miniature drone with a high powered cutting laser that is controlled via an AR/VR interface that would be able to do anything from felling trees to cutting your fingernails. Obviously we’re some way off having that technology today.

But by analogy, it seems like we’re in a much better position to make programming languages that cover a broader and broader set of use cases, because we aren’t so constrained by materials science.

Why would you make one programming language to handle all of these cases? Surely there’s an incredibly strong case for that:

1. It makes more use cases accessible with less cognitive load. That’s pretty much the reason we have programming languages at all.

2. Investments in tooling etc. are magnified.

[zozbot123]

Rust has hygienic macros which one can use to build EDSL's. It's not that hard.

[whatshisface]

No matter how hygenic the macros are, you'll still end up with the problem of a million different DSLs, five for each codebase. With partial-stack languages, different projects can share the same language for each level of the stack.

[readabledotred]

Yes it is isn't a language it is a format which uses Red as natural processing engine, like json uses javascript language as its format.

[azhenley]

The previous title was referring to Red, which is the same Red that I linked to.

[zepto]

The linked article has never had anything to do with the article you linked to.

The term ‘Red’ is used as a contraction by the ‘Readable Human Format’.

It’s not clear to my why you think the previous title would be referring to a project other than the one that it linked to.

[azhenley]

Red is the programming language I linked to. This Readable Human Format is an example of something you can do using the Red language that I linked to. This article on Readable Human Format makes you install the Red language I referred to:

> Install only older version, for windows: https://static.red-lang.org/dl/win/red-063.exe

[zepto]

No. It’s not the same language.

This documentation processor is a different thing, even though it may be produced by the same people.