bert at isgnw.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De
Thu Mar 16 11:00:04 UTC 2000
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ranjan Bagchi wrote:
> I've heard a number of times that Smalltalk itself is distinct from
> the languge and that a new language (say with a C-like syntax and
> "normal" bindings of * over +) can be written.
True - all the interpreter does is executing byte codes. From what
"language" these were generated doesn't matter at all. Also, message
sending/lookup is based on identical selectors - these don't have to look
like Smalltalk keyword messages.
> I've never seen anything like this -- has it ever been done?
Yes. For example, there is Create!, a simulation system that uses a
Pascal/C mixture of syntax but translated to Smalltalk bytecodes.
In Squeak, methods are compiled using the compiler specified in the class
(Behaviour>>compilerClass) - override this with your own compiler, and you
can have any syntax you like ;-)
More information about the Squeak-dev