> 
>  
>
>>In my opinion, the class library is as important as the vm and the
>>language syntax, and the culture is as important as the class library.
>> They have been developing continually.  So, I do not think that
>>Smalltalk has ever been created.  We can say when key ideas were
>>invented, but Smalltalk is much more than vm and classes as objects.
>>    
>>
>
>Exactly.
>
>
>  
>

Yes.

A "language" is a set of words, coupled with the meanings of those 
words.  This of a necessity includes the class library.  See my post 
(dated May 30, 2003) in this thread for a more thorough discussion:

   http://tinyurl.com/pvpqr

And, as I mentioned in that thread:
*
*"If you do not consider the vocabulary words as provided in the typical
Smalltalk library as part of what defines the Smalltalk "language", then
typically the only remaining words are: true, false, self, super, nil,
and a handful of glyphs (such as [, ^, etc.).  And, there really isn't
anything you can do with such a narrowly defined "language".  I don't
think many of the folks reading this newsgroup would consider a language
that only has those half dozen or so words to be a dialect of Smalltalk. "

Nevin
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20060518/36ff379e/attachment.htm