On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:06:00 -0700, jwalsh at bigpond.net.au  
<jwalsh at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> I strongly object to that remark Rado.
>
> I do not troll, I target a very specific problem, which very few on this  
> list will take seriously, and I stick to it, until I get an answer.

I'll give you an answer that is neither authoritative nor comprehensive.  
It may, in fact, not address your issue at all, since you started with a  
link to RISC, and I don't see the relevance of RISC at all.

>> > 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.

The "I" in IDE does, indeed, stand for "integrated". However, integation  
is not a boolean. It's perfectly respectable for an IDE to call outside  
programs: Every professional IDE I've ever used did it, and would have  
been considered "broken" if it couldn't.

Complete integration would be (an) ideal. But many things would be ideal,  
and they're not all of equal precedence.

>> > 2. The Smalltalk problems are ALL introduced ones.

Are you saying that Smalltalk by itself has no problems? Because that just  
means you haven't been paying attention.

>> > 3. Smalltalk demands the "Software be Designed First and Programmed  
>> Later".

Whom are you quoting? I could be wrong but I perceive more lamentations  
that Smalltalk requires too much design (being class-based instead of  
prototype-based) than the other way around.