On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:49:18AM -0700, Dan Ingalls wrote:

> The first component in this gestalt is that I think type annotations
> are useful as documentation, and I have always felt (and often said)
> that a Smalltalk with optional types would be an ideal computing
> environment.  It really fills a hole in the metasystem.

After pondering this, as well as Dave Simmons' subsequent summary of
SmallScript features, I'd love to play around with this.  I'm trying
to find a few spare hours to play with SmallScript.

> The second component is a sort of BOBW (best of both worlds) notion
> that with the cool aspects of Squeak and its numerous multimedia
> facilities, together with what is arguably the fastest execution
> engine going, we could at least have a lot of fun.

Great fun!  (picture me with an ear-to-ear smile :-)

> The third component has to do with applying the Squeak philosophy to
> what otherwise appears to me as a daunting project.  
<etc.>

I'm glad that it is no longer daunting to you :-)  It does make it seem
much more manageable.

> Some questions are:
> 
> 	Would the system benefit from being cast into StrongTalk?

Yes!  Definitely from a performance perspective.  I'm not qualified to
comment on the merits of the type system, other then to say that it sounds
intriguing.

> 		and how much work would this be?

(drawn blank)

> 	Would anyone care if it ran 10 times faster?

Yes!

> 		and how much work would this be?

(drawn blank)

> 	Would it be fun to do?

If "do" is interpreted literally, then it does sound fun, but I don't 
have the large amount of time that it would require for me to usefully
contribute.  However, if I loosely understand "do" to mean "play with
it after it's done", then then my answer is unequivocally affirmative.

Joshua

> 
> Comments?
> 
> 	- Dan
> 
> PS Nathanael:  Could you forward this to Gilad?  I don't have his email addr, but I'd like to hear his comments (which I or you could forward to the list).  Also, David, I'm hoping you will answer with your thoughts.