[Vm-dev] Request: VM support for opening browser

Torsten Bergmann astares at gmx.de
Fri Jul 20 07:48:04 UTC 2012

>I disagree in general with extend vm complexity to add things that can >perfectly work in smalltalk or using a FFI package...

Saying you can do this using FFI/OSProcess is a weak argument.
"fopen" could be in the Smalltalk image as well - but we have it
in the VM.
We may include both into Pharo - so nobody has to load FFI + ConfigurationOfExternalWebbrowser. 

But I dont think that is the route for Squeak, Cuis, ...
These Smalltalks may profit from an VM implementation without
making them "unsafe" or more bound to native OS with FFI and 

How can we proceed in the discussion? There are pros and cons
for both sides. Should we vote?

According to 


"URL within VM" seems to be the winner ;)


More information about the Vm-dev mailing list