[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A question

Eric Clayberg <clayberg@instantiations.com> wrote:

> Gregory T. Sullivan <gregs@ai.mit.edu> wrote in message
> uvqhfgk5z3x.fsf@ernie.ai.mit.edu">news:uvqhfgk5z3x.fsf@ernie.ai.mit.edu...
[snip]
> > Squeak, and Smalltalk in general, is great, but, as far as I could
> > tell when I last looked at it, tends to assume a mostly closed,
> > Smalltalk-centric world.
> 
> While this may be true to a limited extent with Squeak, it is definitely
> *not* true with the Smalltalk world in general. 
[snip]

And, let us note, that it's a *design* goal of Squeak to make it
possible to "live in" Squeak. Of course, it's not the only thing
happening, and are plugins to compile and run AppleScripts (on a mac),
and to run external processes (on Unix).

But the *ideal*, all things being equal, is to have an implementation of
whatever it is you want to deal in Squeak, perhaps in Slang, if
necessary, so that you can explore/modify/etc. *everything* using the
same set of tools.

But, heavens, you can certainly slurp up all the external code you want.
And, heck, you've got sockets, what more does one need? ;)

The default UI is "isolate", mainly for simplicity and portability. But
there were at least two forks/projects that worked on native widgets.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
References: