<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200605182107.k4IL74Ai008464@bountifulbaby.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In my opinion, the class library is as important as the vm and the
language syntax, and the culture is as important as the class library.
They have been developing continually. So, I do not think that
Smalltalk has ever been created. We can say when key ideas were
invented, but Smalltalk is much more than vm and classes as objects.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Exactly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
A "language" is a set of words, coupled with the meanings of those
words. This of a necessity includes the class library. See my post
(dated May 30, 2003) in this thread for a more thorough discussion:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tinyurl.com/pvpqr">http://tinyurl.com/pvpqr</a><br>
<br>
And, as I mentioned in that thread:<br>
<b><br>
</b>"If you do not consider the vocabulary words as provided in the
typical<br>
Smalltalk library as part of what defines the Smalltalk "language", then<br>
typically the only remaining words are: true, false, self, super, nil,<br>
and a handful of glyphs (such as [, ^, etc.). And, there really isn't<br>
anything you can do with such a narrowly defined "language". I don't<br>
think many of the folks reading this newsgroup would consider a language<br>
that only has those half dozen or so words to be a dialect of
Smalltalk. "<br>
<br>
Nevin<br>
<b><br>
</b>
</body>
</html>