If you're going to interface with external systems then obviously you
need security, but we don't need the Squeak environment to protect us
from ourselves anymore then it does now (well, immutability would be
nice).  There are plenty of systems out there that assume the people
using them are complete tools not to be trusted.

On Jan 13, 2008 3:24 PM, Philippe Marschall
<philippe.marschall at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/1/13, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com>:
>
> > On Jan 8, 2008 9:43 PM, nicolas cellier <ncellier at ifrance.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > However, I always preferred the power of Compiler evaluate: to its very
> > > restricted avatar Number readFrom:
> > >
> > > example of non smart readFrom:
> > >         Number readFrom: '1+1'.
> > >         Number readFrom: 'Float pi / 5 sin * 30'.
> > >
> > > Of course, you gotta trust your users then, not very secure...
> > >
> > > Nicolas
> >
> > That sounds like Java talk. :)  I think the most powerful languages
> > (Lisp and Smalltalk) are powerful exactly because they *do* trust
> > their users.
>
> Rigth. This is especially cool, if your user is someone who sends you
> a SOAP message. Trusting him passing the whatever he sends you through
> the compiler seems like the best way to go.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
>