On 24 November 2010 01:35, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:
> On 11/23/10 3:05 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> i just wanna know, what you thinking about subject?
>> How easy/hard to integrate smalltalk VM into browsers? It it feasible?
>> I know, there is (or was) a Squeak browser plugin. But it provides a
>> functionality like java,
>> but not like javascript.
>> While i thinking, that it would be cool to use smalltalk directly in
>> pages, as javascript.
>> It could open quite interesting possibilities.
>>
>> What you think?
>>
> It should be easy to embed squeak into any arbitrary application, but from
> all accounts its not nearly as easy as embedding, say, Lua. Which is sad,
> because if I knew how, I would have embedded squeak into the Second Life
> viewer years ago.
>
Well, i think one of VM developers aim should be to turn VM into
dynamically loadable library
with good API. So then it could be used by arbitrary host application.
And original Squeak VM should be simply a host application provided by default.

> As far as squeak substituting for javascript goes, you'd have a lot of
> security issues to address, which is one of the reasons why the squeak
> plugin never took off, i believe. A friend of mine called it "a hacker's
> dream" when they first introduced it 10+ years ago.
>
Hacker's dream? You must be joking. I could say so, if one would want
to introduce C
as scripting language, because it allows direct manipulation with
pointers. But smalltalk?
You are free to expose only necessary functionality through
primitives, and so, there is no
security risks, higher than in javascript language.

> Lawson
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.