On 24 août 06, at 09:09, Colin Putney wrote:

> I'd much rather see a Smalltalk that let me create small, headless  
> images, tens or hundreds of kilobytes in size, with just the little  
> bits of functionality I need for a particular task. If they had  
> good libraries for file I/O, processing text on stdin/stdout and  
> executing other commandline programs, they'd fill the "scripting  
> language" niche very well. If they could be created and edited by a  
> larger IDE image, they'd have the Smalltalk tools advantage as well.

sure this is the point!
But having a simple syntax for declaring methods like pepsi (instead  
of using !!) can make it.

by the way I'm trying to understand why we cannot have a declarative  
syntax for Smalltalk that still can be interpreted dynamically or  
not. May be I'm not clear enough about what is the declarative  
syntax: for me it means that I can read it and can analyze it and get  
a model of the program (this does not exclude executing it on the fly  
when I load the program).

Stef