> Just out of curiousity, why would you think that StepTalk could become 
> a
> .NET alternative?

Thanks for your reply.

Well, my understanding of .NET my be limited and incomplete but what I 
think
I know is that somebody _finally_ is promoting
1) a common object and object code format for languages to interoperate
2) this apparently presents system-wide access to services in language 
neutral
    way
3) that any .NET language becomes something like a scripting language.
In other words, it pushes the whole concept of the Smalltalk image into 
the
OS and makes applications, libraries, frameworks all modules of it.

Too bad its the indicted monopolist (but still unpunished), Microsoft, 
is the
one doing it, but so be it. .NET will likely always be under the thumb 
of MS.

I have been intrigued by Dave Simmons SmallScript and by Objective C 
both
as evolutions of Smalltalk -- kind of integrating better with the native
OS rather than trying to replace it (for instance, Squeak does not seem 
to
integrate well with any native file system. It reminds me of character 
in
Ghost Busters, Slimer, which ate everything in site).

This whole "one big friggin' image" kind of bothers me as it seems more 
like
a tumor in an OS than a normal extension or part of the OS. Yes, I am 
aware
that at a very, very basic level I am mixing metaphors (why an OS at 
all?),
but so much work is duplicated that way. The scripting approach seems to
provide some of both worlds and for that reason appeals to me in a very
gut level.

If the Smalltalk image weren't so voracious, or could neatly 
modularized, or
whatever, all so that stand-alone apps could be shipped across multiple 
OSes
(the reality we live in), then I'd be ecstatic. Scripting approaches 
like
StepTalk, SmallScript which seem to preserve the best of Smalltalk seem 
like
a real win to me. Objective-C, while preserving the intend of 
Smalltalk, is
another entity.

So there it is.

jw