[squeak-dev] Choice of image for OMeta?

Hannes Hirzel hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Wed Aug 25 15:34:53 UTC 2010


Thank you Michael for your encouragement to just try it.

1) Add http repository www.squeaksource.com/OMeta in the Monticello Browser

2a) Load the package 'OMeta2-preload'
2b) Load the package 'OMeta2'
2c) Load the package 'OMeta2-postload'

3) Evaluate the example
OMeta2Examples match: 3 with: #fact

I did this in the image http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/Squeak4.2-10382-alpha.zip

Thank to Hans-Martin Mosner, I assume for making this a very smooth experience.

--Hannes


Follow up question to Casey: Where do you get your JavaScript interpreter from?

===================

www.squeaksource.com/OMeta2 refers to
http://tinlizzie.org/~awarth/ometa/ometa2.html
for more information

There is a note about

Known Issues
# This implementation uses Squeak's array literals ({...}), so it
won't work on other flavors of Smalltalk. I'll fix this over the next
few days.
# The Squeak debugger complains about OMeta rules — syntax error —
because it doesn't know about OMeta syntax. I have a plan to fix this,
but it's part of a bigger project (the OmniDebugger) which will take
some time to implement. Please let me know if you know of any quick
fixes.

Is this info still up to date?

On 8/25/10, Hannes Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
> According to
> http://tinlizzie.org/ometa/
> it works in both 3.8 and 3.9.
>
> I think both are fine and I am interested in reading about your
> experience of loading it into Squeak 4.1trunk.
>
> --Hannes
>
> More about OMeta
> http://www.tinlizzie.org/~awarth/
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/ometa
>
> Do you have other links?
>
>
> On 8/25/10, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given the choice of 3.8, or 3.9, do folks have a general suggestion? I've
>> heard there were some "sweet" images over the years. I'm of course going
>> to
>> be unable to resist loading OMeta into a trunk image; I have low
>> expectations for success with that, but I'm kind of interested in seeing
>> what the difference is in the performance of the Javascript
>> implementation
>> when Cog is at the bottom of the stack. So I was thinking that I'd get it
>> loaded into an older image, and try to get to know it there.
>>
>> --
>> Casey Ransberger
>>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list