Thank you very much John, that's good information. But I'm quite sure Squeak 
Central could have manipulated Java to have those features (licenses 
permitting).

It's not just the kids that like dynamic programming ;-),I like it and I'm 
sure NASA would find it useful. As I originally said, I prefer the Squeak 
technology. I was thinking people.

Thanks!
Gary

12/01/02 00:47:30, John.Maloney at disney.com wrote:

>Gary,
>
>It wasn't a dumb question at all. But from the replies, you can tell
>that many people are very passionate about Smalltalk in general
>and Squeak in particular! :-)
>
>As one of the guys that made the original Java/Squeak decision,
>I can say that there's one critical feature that Java didn't have
>then and still doesn't have: the ability to modify classes
>while the system is running, including modifying methods. Since
>we wanted to create a dynamic programming environment, this
>was essential. It's surprising that, after all this time, Java still
>doesn't support on-the-fly programming.
>
>We also preferred the Smalltalk "image model" to Java's
>edit-compile-run model of program development. It seemed much
>better for a kids programming environment.
>
>So, faced with the same decision today, we'd almost certainly choose
>to build Squeak all over again. For rapid prototyping, experimenting
>with new forms of media, and creating programming environments
>for kids, Squeak just can't be beat. Those are not Java's strengths.
>
>If you are new to Smalltalk/Squeak, I hope you come to love it
>the way many of us do.
>
>	-- John
>
>
>At 11:57 PM +0000 1/10/02, Gary McGovern wrote:
>>Well, thanks for all the interesting replies :-)
>>
>>I didn't think it was such a dumb idea because according to 
>>the docs, Java was considered as an initial language but 
>>thought not mature enough and there seems to have been no 
>>other reason.
>>
>>But I would be interested in more people making good things. 
>>I've been waiting for better email,browser,irc and news.....
>>
>>I've made a start on a "browser" myself,(to download sites 
>>into books) but that'll be a while yet.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>