On 23-Aug-06, at 8:57 AM, Damien Pollet wrote:

> On 8/23/06, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>> Why on earth does it need to be human readable?
>
> Hmm, because we're humans?

Well, we can cure you with time and patience.
>
>> We can read it into a 'script runner' image.
>
> How do you run a particular script from command line or another script
> in bash/ruby/perl ?

Exactly the same as any other system. The script would executable,  
would invoke the appropriate interpreter (just like perl) which would  
start up, load the appropriate image and then the script. We can do  
that already - since about 97 or so?
>
>>   when examined in a text editor? Text editors are *so* last century.
>
> Isn't Smalltalk older than emacs?
Probably, but I wouldn't hold emacs up as a good example of anything.  
And it certainly wasn't the first text editor, obviously.

>
> And text editors are still the main tool among non-smalltalkers.
> Smalltalk scripting is about hiding the image aspect of Smalltalk: one
> weird thing less to get used to in the short term should ease the
> transition from traditional languages.
I'm not sure I *want* to 'ease the transition from traditional  
languages'. There is a major semantic jump from boring old procedural  
stuff to real objects and dumb tricks like trying to make an OOP with  
C syntax is just foolish. It obfuscates the important changes you  
need to make in your mind. Even plain old '3+4' is just not the same.

I suggest a more applescript/automator approach where possible.  
Decent tool to create the scripts, decent tool to try and debug, etc  
etc.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: PDH: Page to Disk for the Hell of it