Mike Henley wrote:

[snippage]

> Rebol itself seemed a very easy to read language. Sorta like ho
> readable SQL is. I might even say more readable than python or ruby,
> or at least as readable.
> 
> I have the intention to learn it over the coming few days, at least to
> customize vanilla to my needs.
> 
> So i ask you guys, what's wrong with Rebol? i mean other than it's
> proprietary nature. 'cos anyway, there are many commercial IDEs for
> open source languages, and if smitten enough i might even consider a
> rebol SDK. It just amazes me for how readable it is, how much it seems
> to enable to do with so little code, and the size and capability of
> the final solution.
> 
> What's wrong with Rebol?

Perhaps nothing is wrong with it.

 From what I've seen of Rebol, it reminds me of a language that is
nothing but function calls. And it has a very rich, very smart set
of built-in functions with interfaces that are consistent with each
other and fairly intuitive.

My only negative comments would be:
1. Sometimes it's a little "too" high-level for my taste, or high-level
in the "wrong way": Currency data type, for example. Doesn't it have
that? It just feels wrong to me somehow, but that could be a silly
prejudice on my part.
2. As you said, it's proprietary.
3. It's not OOP by any stretch of the imagination. After spending 13
years learning to think OO-ly, a strict procedural language feels like
a step backwards. This feeling is probably enhanced by the name, which
reminds me of COBOL or ALGOL. :)

Having said all that, I can see where Rebol might be really useful in
many circumstances such as quick scripts for web scraping. Though I'd
miss Ruby's regular expressions. Does Rebol have those?

Just my $0.01,
Hal