docs

> They are well funded. Rebol Technologies went bankrupt, and Rebol is de-facto dead since more than a decade; Red barely manages to get by thanks to a recent crypto spike. > I would say the languages are very different in the sense that Beads is clearly aimed at graphical interactive software. So is Red with it's native GUI engine. [1] > Red exists as a systems programming language, a variant customized for building crypto contracts, and then as a general purpose language. "Domain-specific languages" is the term you are looking for. > They are so different that it is hard to compare. Both share the same goal of replacing modern software practices with biased, batteries-included toolchain, varying only in implementation. > Red being a concatenative language has more in common with FORTH than Algol. Red is not concatenative in any sense o

> What if a simpler programming language had first-class representations of a lot more than strings and arrays? Red lang? > Where most languages have 6-8 base datatypes, Red has almost 50. https://github.com/red/docs/blob/master/en/datatypes.adoc

This makes me think of the Red programming language and its many builtin datatypes: https://github.com/red/docs/blob/master/en/datatypes.adoc