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

[Camillo Bruni]

On 2012-07-20, at 10:23, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
> Well... I also disagree with the argument of safeness. 

Exactly, Pharo is inherently "unsafe" so to speak, you can
- remove arbitrary methods
- add arbitrary new classes
- change methods at will
- swap any two objects...

so adding FFI / OSProcess won't add much to this list :D
Besisdes, Ruby and Python include shell invocation by default

> On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> 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 
>> OSProcess.
>> 
>> How can we proceed in the discussion? There are pros and cons
>> for both sides. Should we vote?
>> 
>> According to 
>> 
>> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=URL+with+FFI+and+OSProcess&word2=URL+within+VM
>> 
>> "URL within VM" seems to be the winner ;)
>> 
>> Thanks
>> T.
>