Language experimentation in Squeak?
bparsia at email.unc.edu
Tue Jun 18 23:06:06 UTC 2002
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Adam Spitz wrote:
> Alan Kay wrote:
> > Most of these choices were for reasons of
> > efficiency, but I think the later work of SELF and
> > the MOP show that it is better to have a really
> > clean general semantics with a fully objectified
> > metamodel, and then use (automatic)
> > compilation to get efficiency.
> I'm new to Squeak, and I've been watching silently for
> a while, but now I'm curious: is there any interest in
> the Squeak community in taking Squeak in that sort of
Well, there's Alan. And me. I'm sure there's a few other floating about ;)
I'm a bit fonder of Smalltalk-80 *per se*, and ANSI Smalltalk
compatibility than Alan is, I suspect :)
For a cool MOP for Smalltalk, check out the CoDA papers.
Also, AspectS is worth playing with.
More information about the Squeak-dev