hi lex

> It would be nice if Squeak had an analysis-friendly parser in it.  But
> Smalltalk is such a simple language, everyone seems to just cobble
> together a parser for their own needs.
But the do it syndrome is something that I hate (when I arrived in Smalltalk
people where telling me that I just have to do it if I need it and I hated
that.)

For the moment I will try to continue with the current parser and stabilize
Gutenberg but this is true that I will certainly look at the RBparser
because I would like to have something that is documented (not patched
several times) and that I can understand.

I think that one way to go is to see if we can have enough momentum to
create projects that can survive chronicle image changes. So where is the
Lucid parser? Do you have tests? Because I could look at it as a basis for
starting one. 

For me the definitive test for squeak will be after the modules and the
start of the SqueakFoundation. If after the modules and Squeak Foundation
start the code of Squeak stays the same state meaning

    - if people willing to help improving the internal code of Squeak can't
do it because it is too difficult to change, improve and
    - if the code continue to be in such a state that I cannot lose my
software engineer credibility: randomly look at SystemDictionary, Utilities,
Morph). 
    - if the process is not more open and responsibilities distributed

I will just give up Squeak which will stay a nice experimental blob with
fancy facilities. Sadly. Shouting in the desert is cool for one moment but
fighting with a blob that keeps growing is not fun.

VW is not open source (at least we do not expect too much from them) but
they are moving and they are giving some good signs.
I know that we can have the code of the VW VM if we sign non-disclosure
agreement so this also may a way to go for experimenting with alternate
designs. 

Stef

So I hope 2002 will be the year of Squeak. Because I would be sincerly sad
if it stays the same.