On 2011/04/07 21:13, Colin Putney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Frank Shearar
> <frank.shearar at angband.za.org>  wrote:
>
>> *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.
>
> Why not just use Ruby? Ok, the syntax is a little baroque, but it's
> basically Smalltalk in files.

Yes, but Ruby's also greasy.

>> 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... :) )
>
> Is "Ruby" on the list?     :-P

Nah. I just want to be able to show colleagues that they can get the 
ease of using Ruby without all the gunk.

frank