Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?

[Michael Vanier <address@hidden>]

> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Avi Bryant <avi@beta4.com>
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Michael Vanier wrote:
> 
> > Consider the gauntlet thrown ;-)  BTW GNU Smalltalk gets around some of
> > these problems, although you can't start the file with
> >
> >     #! /usr/bin/env gst
> >
> > to make it executable like you can with python.  Also, there's the syntax
> > issue.
> 
> Which syntax issue do you mean?  I certainly don't intend to use chunk
> format the way gst does - I don't like to write ! everywhere any more than
> you do.
> 
> Do you have any syntax suggestions?

I would like to see curly braces used to delimit method blocks, although ST
usually uses them for arrays (sort of like lisp quasiquote IIRC), although
this isn't used much.  Other than that, I'm pretty easy.  It's not a
totally trivial problem.

> 
> > I think a deeper issue is that python (and ruby, and PLT scheme)
> > have a notion of modules that goes beyond anything I've seen in Smalltalk
> > (although I gather that this is a big topic of current debate).  Not having
> > a decent module system is pretty much a show-stopper for modern scripting
> > languages; I'm glad that the PLT folks have put so much effort into theirs.
> 
> Modules can mean a lot of things; if you're talking about namespaces, then
> no, Squeak doesn't have them, although some Smalltalks do.  There was a
> failed attempt to introduce them in Squeak 3.3 - they just never gained
> traction with the community.  I agree that this is a pity, though I don't
> personally find it a show-stopper.
> 
> Avi
> 

Well, I think this is bound up with the image issue.  If you have modules,
it's easy to specify "just load up these modules, which I need in the
following script" and then you avoid code bloat.

Mike