Damien, Stef, You guys are smart - ok, so that's an understatement. If you say we need a scripting language, we need one. However, I urge you to consider a chain of doits, maybe some cascades thrown in, and facades involving class methods. It seems that would provide a LOT of functionality if done with a mix of care, pragmatism, and directed laziness.
If you can tell us about (or point us to existing descriptions of) the goals, I will gladly take a look with an eye toward saving you some work. Bill Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [email protected] Tel: (352) 273-6785 FAX: (352) 392-7029 >>> [email protected] 01/19/09 7:10 PM >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 00:47, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> My first reaction is "why is it not Smalltalk?" Not the name, but the language itself. Is there something I missed/should read to understand it? > > +1 , i don't understand too, what makes 'scripting' in smalltalk too > different than writing in smalltalk :) Smalltalk only has syntax for method bodies, it lacks a (practical) one for declaring packages/classes/categories/method declarations in a single block of text. -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
