[Squeak-e] squeak-e and ANSI Smalltalk

[Allen Wirfs-Brock]

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.  Just as one example, in ANSI 
Smalltalk a reference to OrderedCollection doesn't necessarily bind to a 
"class object". It is simply a "named object" (a constant global binding) 
to an object that is required to conform to the protocol <OrderedCollection 
factory> and this protocol only includes a few instantiation messages.

In developing the ANSI Smalltalk specification we were trying to define the 
core user language and protocols that is most commonly used in application 
programs, rather than in tools or the reflective implementation of a 
Smalltalk environment.  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.

If you haven't read the ANSI spec. for awhile (or ever) you might find that 
this perspective offers some clues to the perennial question "what were 
your guys smoking when you wrote that spec?".

If you don't have a copy of the ANSI Smalltalk Standard a near final draft 
is still available at:

	ftp://ftp.smalltalksystems.com/sts-pub/x3j20/standard_v1_9.doc
or
	ftp://ftp.smalltalksystems.com/sts-pub/x3j20/standard_v1_9.rtf

Allen_Wirfs-Brock at instantiations.com