Hi Dan,

> I believe it will "just run" if you load it into Squeak 3.4 (it's on 
> SqueakMap).

    Can I just drag and drop it into Squeak VM 3.4 ?

> I always feel the need to mention that the greatest strength
> of St-72 was also its greatest weakness:

> By including syntax in the purview of programming, it

> (a) ran slowly because of parsing as it went,

    How so, was Smalltalk 72 code interpreted instead of
    compiled or was it compiled every time it's run ?

> and  (b) it was possible to write all sorts of ambiguous programs.

    and also all sort of clever programs. ;-)

> Oh, and did I mention (c)
> there were modularity problems with free variables.

    Did Squeak inherit this trait (modularity problems ? ;-)

    Actually I am still a total Smalltalk newbie. I would love to hear
    other opinions on the growth-ability and modularity of Smalltalk
    72 and Squeak.

    It looks like my hope on a modularly growable Smalltalk 72
    is vanishing.

    About the Forth VM, it was just another dream to refactor
    all platform dependent codes.

    Basically, each plugin (including the infamous trio ;-) comprises
    portable ANSI C codes and a portable Forth script.

    The Forth VM is, of course. just another plugin in  assembly.

    It can easily be visualized the VMMaker spitting out a bunch
    of portable C source and Forth scripts for all platforms.

    The VM maintainers have to worry about the tiny Forth VM
    and plugin loader each worh about 10KB of runtime code.

    Do you have any plan for Squeak?

    Cheers,

    PhiHo

    P.S: I am still playing FreeCell with Squeak 3.6


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Ingalls" <Dan at SqueakLand.org>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Squeak forth and Logo


> "SmallSqueak" <smallsqueak at rogers.com>  wrote...
>
>>...
>>   That "small" talk was printed in "Higher-Order and Symbolic 
>> Computation"
>>   (12/1999, pp 221-236):
>>
>>       http://www.brics.dk/~hosc/local/HOSC-12-3-pp221-236.pdf
>>
>>   So much for Guy's "small" talk and his "growable language".
>>
>>   Now back to the real Smalltalk's, perhaps Smalltalk 72 is the most
>>   growable of them all ?
>>
>>   Dan had an image of Smalltalk 72 running inside Squeak.
>>
>>   Is there a real VM for Smalltalk 72 with source available some where?
>>
>>   Any pointer is very much appreciated. It would be interesting to see
>>   the trio plugins for Smalltalk 72 VM running atop a couple of other VM
>>   (Forth is one of them ;-)
>
> Hi, PhiHo  -
>
> It's on my list to revive the St-72 that I did in squeak.  I believe it 
> will "just run" if you load it into Squeak 3.4 (it's on SqueakMap).  Even 
> if it doesn't, all the code is there if you are interested plus, as I say, 
> I'll put out a revised version for 3.9 "pretty soon".
>
> I always feel the need to mention that the greatest strength of St-72 was 
> also its greatest weakness:  By including syntax in the purview of 
> programming, it (a) ran slowly because of parsing as it went, and (b) it 
> was possible to write all sorts of ambiguous programs.  Oh, and did I 
> mention (c) there were modularity problems with free variables.
>
> That said, Smalltalk-72 got us off the launch pad -- it gave us a 
> completely malleable and interactive system that was truly 
> object-oriented.  That's why I bother to keep it available.  Plus, when we 
> moved to St-76, I made the statement to Alan that we could always do St-72 
> in St-76, so it's a completion thing ;-).
>
> - Dan
>
> PS:  About Forth...
> I love Forth -- it's in many ways like St-72, and yet totally different. 
> St-72 has automatic storage management and is really safe.  Forth does not 
> have automatic and is pretty fragile.  St-72 is slow, and Forth rips.  I 
> tried a couple of Forth variants with Smalltalk's nice structure, but lack 
> of garbage collection made it really hard to live the same way.  Helge 
> Horch made a pretty nice run at an OO Forth, if you are interested.
>