Indeed, but they are a special kind of program, with a special kind of promise.  The -lets are not only programs, but they are programs that can exist on the net accessable through URI's, are capable of being delivered through any number of ubiquitous browsers, and can deliver a kind of functionality, pixel for pixel identical across platforms, and with a performance that even Java (which promised all of the above) can't hope to deliver.  Yes, they are a member of a class called programs, but perhaps they are also a member of a proper subclass of programs properly called 'applets'?

On the other hand, while we call them Squeaklets affectionately, perhaps we ought to use the somewhat more professional-sounding 'applets', or 'Squeak applets' instead?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MIME :jeffs at pstnet.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 12:55 PM
> To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Squeak's web server
> > > >Let's call them *programs*!
> >
> >(In case you can't tell the whole "applet", "servlet", > "foo-let" jargon
> >leaves me a bit grumpy ;))
> > I agree here. A piece of code that works in the context of another
> program (say, an OS) is still a program.
> > One could easily use other goofy jargonf or special purpose programs
> like "banger," "clanger", "tinkler" or whatever. But they're still
> programs.
> > --
>     *************************************************
>     Jeff Szuhay                <mailto:jeffs at pstnet.com>
>     Lead Macintosh Engineer    voice: 412/271-5040 x 227
>     Psychology Software Tools  <http://www.pstnet.com/>
> > > >