On 17 August 2010 03:34, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a C app that I'd like to port to Squeak. I had this crazy idea that I
> wanted to incrementally replace parts of it bit by bit with Smalltalk, and
> was entertained by how that seemed roughly impossible. The first thought
> that crossed my mind was to try to bolt some sort of C-based RPC onto it,
> and use that as a way to get it to talk to Squeak. Then I thought about FFI,
> but what I'm reading about that talks specifically about libraries.
> Here's what I'm wondering:
>
> Would it be insanely painful to make parts of the app into libraries that
> could get called via FFI? Would it just make more sense to do a scratch
> implementation? Has anyone ever done something like this before?
> It's a crazy idea:)

Not really crazy. I had same goal In 2006 (i think) , first i
implemented own smalltalk
interpreter, then using SWIG compiler i implemented Ogre 3D library bindings,
which generates glue C++ code, reflecting C++ object into smalltalk.
I was able to allocate new objects, call constructor/destructor,
access fields, static and virtual functions.
But then i dropped it, and switched to Squeak, since its having much
more mature VM,
comparing to my baby interpreter :)

> --
> Casey Ransberger
>
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.