I say go back to trolling the vwnc list, or preferably some 
smalltalk-unrelated list.

thanks, rado

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, jwalsh at bigpond.net.au wrote:

> Sorry for the rude subject line.
>
> Most may not know what a SkyHook is, and for those who don't, it is a joke.
> There is a limit to the number of "work-arounds", even for Smalltalk.
> Smalltalk is simply not designed for it. [yet].
>
> Ref:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC  >  RISC: Definition and Much More From Answers.com :
>
> I think the above definition is not bad and will a serve as a solid Principle upon which to build anArgument:
>
> 1. Smalltalk as an IDE should not need to call upon extranious program support, unless  it respects the rules of Smalltalk. That is why it is called IDE.
> 2. The Smalltalk problems are ALL introduced ones.
> 3. Smalltalk demands the "Software be Designed First and Programmed Later".
>
> If the intended Application Software Design, prior to coding Smalltalk (or any other language for that matter), were given the same RISC teatment  in software, as in RISC  hardware, then we'd have less RISK.
> Furthermore, I sugget, many of the tactics provided so far ,  would be unecessary.
>
> What say you?