[Squeak-e] squeak-e and ANSI Smalltalk
Mark S. Miller
markm at caplet.com
Fri Feb 7 09:37:10 CET 2003
At 04:59 PM 1/31/2003 Friday, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>I just want to mention that when I read Lex's "Object as Capabilities in
>Squeak" I was struck by the number of similarities between it and much of
>what is in the ANSI Smalltalk specification. [...]
>To do so, we needed to strip away all the meta-level
>and implement artifact messages that clutter all conventional Smalltalk
>implementation. This sounds very similar to what you need to do to define a
>secure dialect of Smalltalk.
So what's the relationship between ANSI Smalltalk and Squeak?
Does Squeak conform to the ANSI spec?
Is Squeak a superset of ANSI Smalltalk?
Are the above two questions equivalent?
If the answers are approximately yes, would it be a useful exercise on the
way to Squeak-E to identify what subset of ANSI Smalltalk we are confident
obeys capability discipline and should be included in Squeak-E? Let's say we
call this subset SafeSmalltalk. SafeSmalltalk would not necessarily be
expected to be a workable language, in that critical stuff may have been
left out and SafeSmalltalk doesn't say what it's replaced with.
We could then define the first <adjective>-Squeak-E (eg Core-Squeak-E) as
SafeSmalltalk + those additions we are confident maintain capability
discipline, and are needed to get back to a language approximately as
functional as ANSI Smalltalk. Such an effort would postpone the
implementation questions of how Squeak-E and Squeak coexist in the same image.
Does this sound like a useful exercise to anyone?
Btw, I am quite aware that I'm coming in from outside y'all's community and
culture. I greatly appreciate the open arms with which I've been welcomed,
but I do remember that y'all's way of doing things may be different than
what I expect. So if this is just off track as a way to proceed, please let
me know. Thanks.
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
More information about the Squeak-e