On 2011/04/07 20:19, Colin Putney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Casey Ransberger
> <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Er, well, file based tools don't work well for Smalltalk code because our fileout format isn't meant to be edited by humans. It doesn't have to be this way. Look at GNU Smalltalk. Files work fine there because there's support for them...
>
> Well, you could invent a new syntax and a system for dealing with code
> in files, sure. The Pharo folks are doing that with Coral. But that
> goes far beyond what Frank proposed, and it's probably more work than
> writing SmalltalkHub. Besides, who wants to write Smalltalk code in
> emacs?

*cough*. Me. OK, I want to be _able_ to. For instance, I'd like to be 
able to bang out a Smalltalk script as easily as I can a Ruby one, with 
all the interoperability that implies (piping to and from other 
utilities, for instance), and in particular, do so without pulling a 
20-30MB image.

The main thing is that time and again we waste our time writing our own 
implementations of things, when surely we have better things to do? (I 
can provide a long list... :) )

frank