Another option could be to have a curses based development environment:
drop-down lists and menus etc, all text-based through a curses-like
package.

It's very easy to see Squeak become a viable CGI or servlet language if
there was a text-based UI for it.

Asim

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:25:32AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > Why edit Smalltalk in emacs or vi, when
> > Smalltalk has very nice browsers already?
> 
> Because people want to? The trick I'm talking about is *not* hard to do,
> so it's not like a huge implementation burden. Thus, I'd claim, the burden
> of proof is on *you* :)
> 
> > Smalltalk has senders-of, help with class definitions, and easy storage
> > of static data.  Files have grep, long-form class definitions, and a
> > myriad of choices for initializing static data.  Why go back
> > to text files to hold Smalltalk stuff?
> 
> Well, only for Smalltalk *scripts* eh? In particular, it can make a lot of
> sense for short (e.g., < 20 line) jobbies or minor changes. And Squeak's
> remote tools aren't quite up to snuff (i.e., it's prolly easier for most
> folks to remotely edit a text file than use Squeak in such a
> circumstance).