That's an interesting example, as the name of Ruby (as well as its purpose and syntax) evoked memories of Perl when it first became well-known enough. And even back in those days, that wasn't necessarily a good thing.
REBOL had some things going for it: Small executable, interesting syntax, data types and features and the pedigree of its developer.
On the other hand, it was a proprietary contender in a field with a plethora of open source contributors, and where developers actually cared about this.
And with that comes a lack of community and packages. Not sure if REBOL even has a package system/repository, which is quite important, no matter how good your standard library is (one of the things that, well, mortally wounded Tcl).
When I first heard of REBOL in the '90s, I assumed it's some kind of scripting-oriented COBOL variant. That's pretty much the worst association for a modern and convenient language.
Imagine if Ruby were named "NuBASIC" -- everyone involved with it would first have to spend time explaining that it has nothing to do with BASIC. That's how bad it is for REBOL, in my eyes.