[Seaside] Re: What do you think about Ruby on Rails ?

[stephane ducasse]

On 10 août 05, at 17:15, Benjamin Pollack wrote:

> On 8/9/05, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at free.fr> wrote:
>
> Then I have a question. There is no problem you to code in emacs
> Smalltalk code (look at the format of the file you obtain
> when you fileout a changeset) and load it when you launch an image.
> You will get a file-based language.
>
> If you want a design of how this would work, take a look at SLIME,  
> which communicates with the Lisp environment over Unix or Berkeley  
> sockets. It probably wouldn't be hard to implement identical  
> functionality for Squeak. The major obstacle would probably be  
> writing a good Smalltalk mode for Emacs, although the GNU Smalltalk  
> people may already have one.
>
> What is the problem of having an image when you save your code with
> monticello.
> What I would like to have is a smalltalk scripting language. If you
> are interested this is an exciting topic.
>
> I'm not sure what a Smalltalk scripting language would really mean.  
> If it simply meant executing a file of Smalltalk code, then  
> (speaking as a huge Smalltalk fan here) I fail to see how that's  
> any better than Ruby or Python. (We also already have that,  
> incidentally, for at least Squeak and GNU Smalltalk; the Swiki has  
> more info.) If it means adding better support for IPC and text  
> processing, that would make more sense, and would have positive  
> implications for general Squeak development as well.

But why because this is in XXX we cannot have it in Smalltalk.
I would like to be able to write

Directory default filesAndFoldersDo: [:file | Output show: file  
size ; cr]

and not manipulate strings as in python.

Stef

>
> --Benjamin
> _______________________________________________
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/seaside
>