Damien Pollet a écrit :
> On 8/23/06, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>> Why on earth does it need to be human readable?
> 
> Hmm, because we're humans?
> 
>> We can read it into a 'script runner' image.
> 
> How do you run a particular script from command line or another script
> in bash/ruby/perl ?
> 
>>   when examined in a text editor? Text editors are *so* last century.
> 
> Isn't Smalltalk older than emacs?
> 
> And text editors are still the main tool among non-smalltalkers.
> Smalltalk scripting is about hiding the image aspect of Smalltalk: one
> weird thing less to get used to in the short term should ease the
> transition from traditional languages.


In one hand I really understand Tim position:
what does it mean to edit Smalltalk code in a flat text file?
Is it still Smalltalk as it is done outside of the Smalltalk IDE?
(which may explain why GNU-Smalltalk is so unsuccessfull...)

In the other hand, may be for small script it is deable to write 
smalltalk code in flat file (yes, sure, it is doeable, but who want?)

Nevertheless, doing scripting with Smalltalk is really appealing.

Hilaire