I still don't know what to make of this language. If anything, it sounds too easy, making me think "what's the catch?" Is this a small programming cult or is it Czech wizardry obscured by a language barrier? Are there no highly visible Red projects because of shortcomings in the language and its community, or because the language is so potent, its users so empowered, that big libraries aren't necessary?

I'm I shallow if I stopped caring about this project after they started with all this crypto currency stuff?

Things I find exciting about Red:

* Small

* Lisp like

* Cross compiler "done right" [1]

* Red/System is a cool concept (a language dialect for low-level/systems programming).

Things I find discouraging:

* Bus factor = 2 (IMHO) [2]

* Apparently, it took it 8 years to get simple (in words of author) G.C. [3]

* Docs and example code are not great, lack of existing apps (chicken & egg problem).

1: https://github.com/red/red/blob/master/usage.txt#L68-L81

2: https://github.com/red/red/graphs/contributors

3: https://github.com/red/red/tree/v0.6.4

There are a lot of topics here now, which is great, and the opening question about what to make of Red is a good one. The problem in answering it is the same problem we have when pitching it to people: it's hard to sum up.

Is there a catch? Yes. More than one actually. One is that, because we are building things from the ground up, we don't get things for free that other languages do. For example, JVM-based langs get a lot for free, but at a cost. Another catch, and a big one, is that Red is fundamentally different in some design aspects, both superficial (syntax) and deep (all is data, words and bindings, etc.). Those two things deter a lot of people. We get that. If you want to keep doing things mostly the way you always have, Red is not for you. If you just want lots of familiar libs and features, you may have to wait for them, or help build them. This makes us a self-selecting community. We don't want to be a cult, but we also won't compromise certain things with the hope of it making us more popular. There are few easy choices here.

For those who find Red, and give it a shot, not all will like it, and not all who like it will understand it or use it effectively. We also accept that. For those who have the courage to try something new (I mean, really try it), and who take the time to understand it (the process of which brings its own benefits, no matter what language you use), and who reach the moment where it clicks in their head, there is no going back.

Whether you support and commend features, or criticize them fairly, they are features. To have meaningful discourse about Red, we need to go deeper. Much deeper. If you only want to compare Red to other tools, on their terms, we'll often lose. But if you look at what Red can do, that they can't, and Red's fundamental goals, it becomes clear that comparisons don't mean much. That's true for any 2 languages. It can help, provide context, etc., but ultimately you have to evaluate a language or tool on its own merits, just as you have to evaluate yourself and see your own worth and value without comparison to others.

If you think the state of software development is just fine, and a few tweaks are all we need, Red probably isn't for you. But if you have nagging doubts about why things are so hard, so big, so complex, when it seems like they should be easy, small, and simple...maybe you'll be curious and brave enough to take the Red pill. Most, we know, just want the big juicy steak.

We can talk more, explain more, if people want. Gitter is our most active channel, but we can try to respond here as well. We're glad to hear what people like, and accept fair criticism.

The Red Language has always described itself as functional imperative. I used to point out to people that functional programming can be imperative and nobody (I do mean nobody I spoke to about this) would believe me on this. Then I would point out to people Red Language as an example and they would scratch their heads in confusion.

Even the Wikipedia article gets this wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming

Functional imperative is the idea of using functions to define the shape of an application, which is to say the nesting of functions defines both the stacked structure and the resulting control flow opposed to describing units of logic or any sort of reflection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_model#Functional_deco...

I was so worried when they announced their cryptocurrency plans that Red wouldn't survive when the cryptocurrency hype bubble would inevitably pop. Glad to see that they managed.

Isn't Red a great language to teach children? I just tried Red and it's amazingly simple to get started.

A great feature of Red is their cross platform GUI support. I see Android is also supported. Does anyone know what the status of iphone (iOS) support is ?

After seeing the first demos from Rebol View many years ago, nothing comes close yet.

I'm hungry for web app development in Red and good ORM support.

A language with a GC does not seem appropriate for a "full-stack" language with which one would write operating systems, drivers, or game engines. I don't know why any language without full manual memory management would ever posit itself as being appropriate for these domains. It's naive at best.