It may not be good form, but let me reply to my own posting, since I want
to discuss a piece that, so far, no-one else has discussed.

Joe Davison said: 
> Alan Kay said: 
> > This, in a nutshell, is one of our main nearterm goals -- especially (a) a
> > "total" environment, and (b) "a good live document for computer science in
> > general".
> > 
> > All on the Squeak list, please think about helping this along over the next
> > year.
> > 
> 
> I don't know.  I've used Smalltalk, Forth, and Lisp (Macintosh Common Lisp,
> Harlequin's LispWorks on Unix and Gnu/X emacs) environments, all of which
> are "unitary" environments that try to be total.  I also use unix under
> Xwindows on a daily basis.
> 
> I think, in general, I prefer the "separable" environments where I have a
> broad spectrum of small tools I can use whenever I want.  It's very easy to 
> incorporate new tools, or to try out somebody else's great ideas.


My biggest problem with the Unitary Squeak environment is that I have a
"real" job that I have to do that does not revolve around Squeak.  On the
other hand, I'd love to be able to use Squeak to help me do that job.

That means I MUST be able to integrate Squeak with other tools.  Another
part of my previous post was relevant here:

> It seems to me that GNUemacs  or Xemacs may be good models of what such an
> environment [should] be like. They allow me to run separated tools as
> "inferior" processes, at least on Unix systems, capturing the output and
> interacting with them using the other services provided by the OS.
> 

I've not looked recently -- is there a Squeak equivalent of an emacs Shell
interaction window? That is, a window where what I type is fed to another
"unix" process and the output from that process is captured and displayed?
That goes a long way to doing what I want, and would probably provide an
example from which to build extensions...

joe