Aaron J Reichow wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Jeff Szuhay wrote:
> 
> > >I think the SqueakNOS project is the ultimate in cool here. Who
> > >need an os when you got Squeak ?
> > >squaknos.sourceforge.net
> >
> > Yes, this is the ultimate cool.
> >
> > I was also thinking that putting squeak on a microkernel OS
> > (Darwin, Hurd, GnuStep) would be even cooler than on a
> > monolithic one: Linux, etc.).  Oops! ... just stepped on a "flame war"
> > mine;
> > my bad.
> 
> I think this micro-war has happened a couple times, at least while I've
> been on the list. :)  One reason that I do like the Squeak community so
> much is that it never does turn into any kind of flame war... It usually
> amounts to: "eh, do what you will, I'll do what I do."
> 
> A microkernel OS would definately be cooler than Linux, and a No-OS would
> be ever better, but I'm thinking in practical terms...  Linux would
> provide us the ability to run on many platforms (like the OS-requiring
> version of Squeak now) and provide us with drivers galore.
Drivers is an unsolved issue in SqueakNOS as far as I know. To connect it to
my 
Epson printer fx would be a hassle...
> 
> Something that could be pretty cool that one couldn't get as easily as
> with a SqueakNOS is having a C-compiler.  It'd be *way* cool to have a
> plug-in/driver IDE all in Squeak. From Slang to binaries- be them
> executables, libraries or kernel modules/extensions- all within the Squeak
> environment.  Make it all a front end on gcc and gdb.  It wouldn't be
> Smalltalk, but it would beat having to quit Squeak (or switch to a
> terminal from the frame buffer), do all of your editing in
> pico/emacs/pico, compiling debugging and then returning to Squeak.  Just
> an idea...
There are various Smalltalk classes that convert Smalltalk to machine code directly
so there is no need to deal with other tools and languages at all. 
But you would have to rewrite all your C code in Smalltalk first...
Or maybe there is such a converter out there ? :-)
Karl