On May 4, 2008, at 7:00 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:

>>
>> Now I would love to see really integrate a stdout so that we could  
>> get
>> Squeak headless
>> and using it as a "scripting" language. Right now on each platform we
>> have to use a plugin
>> which is not working the same or not available on the platform.
>> Is there any chance that we would get
>>
>> Output nextPut: 'zork'
>
> That is certainly easy to do, it would be just a matter of agreeing
> to make a #primitiveGetStdout available on all platforms. But to be
> honest, I'm not sure that this is suitable for a "base Squeak," and
> Squeak is probably never going to be a good choice as a scripting
> language IMHO.

I do not see why. why would I have to use Ruby to write little  
utilities that manage files
and others. May be I should wait that ruby get an interactive  
environment and switch after all.
We could have a debugger-enable version that brings you in the image
if there is a bug and a headless version.

> In any case, if you feel like playing around with the idea, I put
> something into the CommandShell package that lets you use Squeak
> like an interactive shell, sort of a /bin/sh equivalent except
> that it also does Smalltalk. Evaluate "ExternalCommandShell start",
> save your image, start it up headless from the Unix command line,
> and viola a crude interactive shell. If you are really adventurous,
> you can use it as your Unix login shell ;)  Note that I do *not*
> suggest this as a scripting language, but it's fun to play around
> with it.

I will give a try. I still do not see why this would not be good to do  
scripts.
I will also take over the scripting syntax mathieu implemented and  
that looks
like pepsi.


>
>
> Dave
>
>
>