On 1 June 2011 08:30, Trygve Reenskaug <trygver at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> Hi all,
> If you don't like the Squeak language as it is, all you need to do is to
> write a new compiler and use it for compiling the methods of your own
> classes. Many different languages can co-exist in the same image without
> problems. VW has done it; the methods of some classes were written in SQL
> when I looked at it several years ago. I've done it when I got rid of the
> annoying class companion, the metaclass. (Several of my classes shared the
> same metaclass). The experiment didn't lead where I wanted to go, so I
> abandoned it. My BabyIDE environment for DCI programming does it by
> extending Traits with knowledge about the (DCI) Context of the methods. None
> of it exactly straight forward, but doable.
>
> Here are some details if you're interested
>
> Most programming languages such as Java are used to specify complete
> programs. The 'original' of a program is its text form. A compiler
> translates to a binary form.
>
> There is no Smalltalk language in this sense. The 'original' of a program is
> its binary form as an object structure in the image. The creation of a new
> class object is done by a process in this image.  Usually, this is done by a
> command in the Browser. The common textual form for defining a new class is
> a 'doIt'; a statement to be interpreted by the image. The so called
> Smalltalk language is used to specify methods; one method at the time. The
> compilation and installation of a method is done by the class; the methods
> of different classes can be specified in different languages.
>
> So, if you really want a different syntax, you can write your own compiler
> and share it with other people who share your interests. There's no need for
> an up-front decision and translation of all legacy code.
>
> Many interesting experiments could be made this way.

Amen. And what I'd like to see Trunk do is enable this kind of
experimentation, by providing hooks into the base system, and making
things pluggable/modular so that (a) you can actually run the
experiment - by swapping out a Compiler, for instance - and (b) you
don't have to hack on the Squeak platform itself. That lets your
experiment fail without taking down the entire image.

frank

> --Trygve
>
>
>
>
> On 2011.06.01 03:24, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>
> info at tomsik.cz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:01:14 +0200, Randal L. Schwartz
> <merlyn at stonehenge.com> wrote:
>
> "info at tomsik" == info at tomsik cz <info at tomsik.cz> writes:
>
> info> In short: 1.) binary messages make sense only for math. I've never
> info> implemented even one binary message, have you? (for non-math
> info> things)
>
> info> Why not step further and make dsl for equations? let them live
> info> outside of language.  (with everything common to math world)
>
> info> 2.) keyword messages with more than 2 arguments are just ugly -
> info> they smell in the "missing another object" way. And 2 arguments
> info> are rare too. I would allow one argument at top.
>
> So, you've now eliminated both possible ways of creating a new Point:
>
>     3 @ 4
>     Point x: 3 y: 4
>
>
> I'll go few steps further to show big-picture in hypothetical syntax
> (one-argument closures with argument as implicit receiver, no returns ->
> CPS)
>
> Point new: [x: 3, y: 4, printOn: aStream].
> <rcvr> <msg>: <arg>[<msgForNew>: <arg>, <msgForNew>: <arg>, <msgForNew>:
> <arg>].
> concepts: always left-to-right (receiver->message->argument), no parentheses
> -> uniformity
> returns: nothing, does something
>
> So, #new: creates a point without values for x and y... What if I want to
> only build objects that make sense, meaning that their instance variables
> must conform to some invariant defined by the class?
>
> vs.
> (Point x: 3 y: 4) printOn: aStream.
> (<rcvr> <msg>: <arg> <key2>: <arg2>) <msg>: <arg>.
> concepts: sometimes left-to-right, depending on parentheses and message-type
> (syntax)
> returns: aPoint, which won't be used anyway, because it was printed already.
>
> Easy choice. This is much nicer.
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> I wonder what language we would end up with if all of your (even
> conflicting) goals were implemented.
>
> The more syntax you eliminate, the more you end up with LISP.  Maybe you
> want LISP... you know where to find it!
>
>
> I'm not saying "let's drop objects", I'm saying "let's simplify language,
> let's drop unused/misused/bad-in-long-process things"
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3663 - Release Date: 05/27/11
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Trygve Reenskaug       mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no
>
> Morgedalsvn. 5A         http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
>
> N-0378 Oslo               Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
>
> Norway
>
>
>