On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:07:45 -0700, Hans-Martin Mosner hmm@heeg.de wrote:
Another thing is that code interchange between different Smalltalk implementations is something that should not be jeopardized lightly. When packages use implementation idiosyncrasies, they are less likely to be ported.
Which is at odds with Squeak as experimental platform. I'm not sold on pipes in particular and I'm very opposed to clutter in general, but if we can come up with features that significantly reduce code we should embrace them without too much concern for portability.
I seem to recall Alan suggesting that the quantity of code in the Squeak base could be reduced by an order of magnitude (from 50K to 5K?). That's a goal well worth pursuing, and other Smalltalks would follow suit were Squeak to succeed.