On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Jeff Szuhay wrote:

> Thanks for your reply.

My apologies if I sounded a bit harsh.  StepTalk has changed a little
since I last played with it- I see that it can be host to more scripting
languages (Guile coming soon), and from that, I can see why you'd think of
.NET.

While he didn't say it straight up, I think any language which is a part
of StepTalk would have access to the GNUstep API.  However, there is
nothing about having one language get at the library avaialable in the
other languages.

> I know is that somebody _finally_ is promoting
> 1) a common object and object code format for languages to interoperate
> 2) this apparently presents system-wide access to services in language
> neutral way
> 3) that any .NET language becomes something like a scripting language.
> In other words, it pushes the whole concept of the Smalltalk image into
> the OS and makes applications, libraries, frameworks all modules of it.

That's more or less it.  The important stuff, at least!

> Too bad its the indicted monopolist (but still unpunished), Microsoft,
> is the one doing it, but so be it. .NET will likely always be under the
> thumb of MS.

Yes, but there are OSS/FS versions in the works.  Mono (
http://www.go-mono.com ) is being worked on by Ximian, and has moved to
the point where it is definately useful.  It hasn't totally caught up with
MS's .NET, but it's getting there! There is also dotGNU (
http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/ ), which hasn't covered as much ground
as Mono, but is also working toward the same goal.

> This whole "one big friggin' image" kind of bothers me as it seems more
> like a tumor in an OS than a normal extension or part of the OS. Yes, I
> am aware that at a very, very basic level I am mixing metaphors (why an
> OS at all?), but so much work is duplicated that way. The scripting
> approach seems to provide some of both worlds and for that reason
> appeals to me in a very gut level.

The Smalltalk image doesn't bother me.  The fact that it cannot be
deconstructed does.  A Smalltalk image is a running, living group of
objects.  The image is like a photo of the contents of the computers
memory at the time.  In my perfect language/system, I would save and
load an image most of the time, but there are times when I'd need to
reconstruct it from scratch.  That isn't possible now with Sxqueak and
most Smalltalks.  As a living entity, it has evolved to the point where
pulling it apart and glueing it back together will not necesarily yield
the same thing.

On my machine, I don't boot from scratch every time.  In between session,
I 'hibernate,' saving the contents of the RAM to the disk if I need to
shut it off.

> If the Smalltalk image weren't so voracious, or could neatly
> modularized, or whatever, all so that stand-alone apps could be shipped
> across multiple OSes (the reality we live in), then I'd be ecstatic.

They can.  If you have the Squeak runtime installed, you can load an
application in the format of a project.  Or, loading it through SqueakMap.
Granted, the setup Squeakers have to use now a days isn't perfect, but
things are getting better.

You still cannot pull apart a Squeak image though.  You can move apps
across platforms and load them there, in the form of an image segment (a
project) or in an uncompiled .st file(s).


Regards,
Aaron

  Aaron Reichow  ::  UMD ACM Pres  ::  http://www.d.umn.edu/~reic0024/
"Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or package tours, Java's designers were
consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them."  ::  paul graham