About script, is not what is about GNU Smalltalk, plus it have a clean
licence, a JIT compiler but yes a poor IDE environment

Hilaire

Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 08:27 +0200, Markus Gaelli a écrit :
> Dear squeak masters and friends,
> 
> Professor Nierstrasz (liking the IDE of Squeak and Smalltalk a lot,  
> but starting to build Ruby scripts for convenience (#!) reasons)  
> asked Marcus and me about the possibility of having Squeak as a good  
> script writing engine on the one hand and a script executor on the  
> other hand.
> 
> The underlying idea is simple: use a full fledged Squeak as your IDE  
> but then file out your smalltalk script you created (in a more human  
> readable version, thus without those "!!" and also edible in Emacs  
> and friends, maybe looking like the scripts Andreas and Bert proposed  
> on Squeak-dev recently) and run it on top of some minimal working  
> image in a #!/usr/local/bin/squeak way. Ruby on rails will be on the  
> next version of OS-X, but what does us stop to have things like  
> Seaside there in the follow up?
> 
> I think currently it is the license. Especially for the stuff needed  
> to run the "scripts".
> Whereas I would not care for the open source kindness of the Squeak  
> license, many people do...
> 
> As far as I understand the situation, a minimal working image could  
> be soon made OSI-compliant using this apple open source license  
> APSL2, no?
> Isn't it mainly morphs on the image side? These would not be  
> necessary in the minimal script, but maybe I am too "blue eyed" here  
> again.
> 
> But for the VM side: Is it too naive from me to think that it is only a:
> 
>   "YES, I HEREBY DECLARE ALL MY CHANGES TO THE APSL2 LICENSED VM FROM  
> SQUEAK 1.1 ALSO TO BE APSL2 LICENSED"
> (please sign here ...)
> 
> from the few VM gurus (I hopefully caught here as addressees) which  
> prevents us from doing so?
> 
> So please, dear VM gurus, tell me, this would be possible to  
> relicense your great work of the last years to something OSI  
> compliant- and then do it, - or that this has already been done, or  
> that it is unnecessary for some good reason. I think changing the  
> _current_ VM license to APSL2 could accelerate the rest of the  
> process a lot.
> 
> Then - having this "scripting language plot" established, we might be  
> able to tear some more people to the "Etoys Omniuser plot" which in  
> my eyes stays the master plan of course...
> 
> And: I may be ignorant! Is there any discussion about this issue I am  
> missing, or points that I see in a wrong perspective?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Markus
> 
> p.s. Please forgive receiving this as a doublet, but it was silly of  
> me to send this only to a few people yesterday - learn sth. new every  
> day... ;-)
> The alternative would have been to send it to squeak-board, but now I  
> opted to have the discussion (hopefully there is more action) public  
> and not closed - it is about the openness of squeak in the end...
> 
>