[Vm-dev] Request: VM support for opening browser
estebanlm at gmail.com
Fri Jul 20 10:39:02 UTC 2012
also java, .net, etc...
Runtime.exec or something like that, I don't remember (thankfully :) ) well...
On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
> On 2012-07-20, at 10:23, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>> Well... I also disagree with the argument of safeness.
> Exactly, Pharo is inherently "unsafe" so to speak, you can
> - remove arbitrary methods
> - add arbitrary new classes
> - change methods at will
> - swap any two objects...
> so adding FFI / OSProcess won't add much to this list :D
> Besisdes, Ruby and Python include shell invocation by default
>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
>>>> I disagree in general with extend vm complexity to add things that can >perfectly work in smalltalk or using a FFI package...
>>> Saying you can do this using FFI/OSProcess is a weak argument.
>>> "fopen" could be in the Smalltalk image as well - but we have it
>>> in the VM.
>>> We may include both into Pharo - so nobody has to load FFI + ConfigurationOfExternalWebbrowser.
>>> But I dont think that is the route for Squeak, Cuis, ...
>>> These Smalltalks may profit from an VM implementation without
>>> making them "unsafe" or more bound to native OS with FFI and
>>> How can we proceed in the discussion? There are pros and cons
>>> for both sides. Should we vote?
>>> According to
>>> "URL within VM" seems to be the winner ;)
More information about the Vm-dev