Again, thanks everyone.

I'm sure I'll understand why the Squeak way is better as I become more
familiar with it.
For some reason I'm strangely compelled by the Smalltalk 'language' itself
so I can't see why I couldn't become just as enamoured by the Squeak
environment and philosophy.

I didn't really think my question (innocent as I thought it would be) would
spawn so many messages and arguments. My favourite is definitely the one
below. Great stuff Göran - if you were nearby I'd give you a prize.

But the message actually does potentially point me in the right direction.

What I was originally thinking was that I could design some helpful
utilities to automate some of the things I do at work so I thought that
taking a small .exe compiled from code of my own creation would be more
acceptable to my company than to take a whole development environment.
Please don't start another line of arguments over that statement though. It
might well be flawed but I'm sure we'll all get over it.

I think I will make a concerted effort for the moment to enhance my learning
of Smalltalk in Squeak.

But I just have to point out that it is fantastic to see so many people
willing to help and to give quite diverse advice. My original programming
problem had so many different solutions which was actually really
encouraging. It helps to have it demonstrated that there isn't necessarily a
right or wrong way to do anything.

2 + 3 = 5. But getting a Point from a String? Sit down and let me tell you a
story....

Regards
Patrick

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:39:02 +0100
Subject: What is the problem? (was Re: A stupid newbie question)
To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
From: goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Reply-To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org

Hi dudes!

[self wear: AsbestJacket new; jumpIn; headForCover] fork

"Gary McGovern" <garywork at lineone.net> wrote:
[SNIP]
> I'm not trying to convert you here, but I can't think of anything simpler
> than double clicking on an icon except single clicking on one. But who am
I
> to say.

Well, then just do it. I can't for my life understand what all this fuss
is about ("you" below is referring to "any Squeaker", not Gary or anyone
else):

1. You want to doubleclick on an exe? Fine, rename the VM to
mylittleapp.exe and go right ahead.

2. You want to drag an image onto a VM (the Mac way)? Fine, works too.

3. You want to doubleclick on a shortcut? Fine, make one to the VM with
the correct image given as a parameter.

4. You want to be able to doubleclick on images? Yep, that can work too
- just fix the association to document type ".image" in Windows and you
are off.

4. You want a deployed application to ONLY consist of an exe? Well, fine
- note though that 99% of all Win32 applications out there actually are
NOT just a single exe, but hey, Squeakers have been attacking that one
too - check the FAQ. In principle you just "embed" an image in the VM
and all the plugins used must be compiled inlined in the VM. I think
that would cover it.

5. You want to COMPILE Squeak code into machine language and thus
produce an exe? Ok, you are out of luck today. There are no native
compilers available today for the Squeak bytecodes.

6. You want an easier install of Squeak on Linux? Use Debian and the
available packages for it. Can't get any simpler than that. :-)

So... am I totally missing something here (didn't have time to read all
of the postings)? What is the problem? If you just think of image files
as documents and the VM as the editor for them then this is standard
stuff for Windows as far as I can tell.

regards, Göran

PS. This is not an irritated posting, I wouldn't be posting if I didn't
want to help! :-) DS



--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Squeak-dev mailing list
Squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeak-dev

End of Squeak-dev Digest