How about the idea that instead of translating the Squeak VM from 
Smalltalk to C, that it would be translated to Objective-C?  Wouldn't it
then be easier to write the VM in a a more natural style of Smalltalk?  Is
Objective-C standard enough to make this a feasible idea?

-Carl

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, David Stes wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Steve Dekorte wrote:
> 
> > Is anyone working on a Smalltalk to Objective-C interface?
> > I don't mean code conversion, I mean a direct interface between 
> > running Smalltalk and Objective-C code.
> 
> My first impression was that it might be a good idea, but then later I was
> thinking that it is against the idea, both of Squeak and Objective-C. 
> 
> For example, with the question on QuickTime-support that we had a while
> ago on this list, of making a "link" between Squeak and QuickTime, it was
> clear that the Squeak people feel, that having such external modules, is a
> bit against their philosophy of being able to access everything, from top
> to bottom, as Smalltalk code.  (well, there was also a concern of 
> portability, but that concern wouldn't apply in the ST<->OBJC case).
> 
> Anyhow, I certainly respect this feeling, and when you see how nice Squeak
> is, and how much they achieved, like how easy you can get Smalltalk from a
> different source, to work in Squeak (it would be difficult if you have
> external modules, I think). 
> 
> Objective-C is, in its heart, runtime support for a Smalltalk -> C
> translator.  It's better to just continue to do it like that, I think,
> (i.e. conversion) and make sure that we follow the standard that Squeak is
> setting. 
> 
> David.
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------
 Carl Gundel  carlg at world.std.com  Shoptalk Systems  508-872-5315
 author of Liberty BASIC, a 1996 PC Magazine Awards Finalist!
 http://world.std.com/~carlg/basic.html
------------------------------------------------------------------