[Seaside] Re: What do you think about Ruby on Rails ?
stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Fri Aug 12 10:55:01 CEST 2005
On 10 août 05, at 17:15, Benjamin Pollack wrote:
> On 8/9/05, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at free.fr> wrote:
> Then I have a question. There is no problem you to code in emacs
> Smalltalk code (look at the format of the file you obtain
> when you fileout a changeset) and load it when you launch an image.
> You will get a file-based language.
> If you want a design of how this would work, take a look at SLIME,
> which communicates with the Lisp environment over Unix or Berkeley
> sockets. It probably wouldn't be hard to implement identical
> functionality for Squeak. The major obstacle would probably be
> writing a good Smalltalk mode for Emacs, although the GNU Smalltalk
> people may already have one.
> What is the problem of having an image when you save your code with
> What I would like to have is a smalltalk scripting language. If you
> are interested this is an exciting topic.
> I'm not sure what a Smalltalk scripting language would really mean.
> If it simply meant executing a file of Smalltalk code, then
> (speaking as a huge Smalltalk fan here) I fail to see how that's
> any better than Ruby or Python. (We also already have that,
> incidentally, for at least Squeak and GNU Smalltalk; the Swiki has
> more info.) If it means adding better support for IPC and text
> processing, that would make more sense, and would have positive
> implications for general Squeak development as well.
But why because this is in XXX we cannot have it in Smalltalk.
I would like to be able to write
Directory default filesAndFoldersDo: [:file | Output show: file
size ; cr]
and not manipulate strings as in python.
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Seaside