[Pharo-project] Smalltalk as embedded platform/language?
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 12:16:53 EST 2012
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras <
vonbecmann at gmail.com> wrote:
> andy wingo discuss embedded vs extensions and suggest that extension is
> because you put the user on the loop with better tool support.
yes, but this is orthogonal. If one has a useful library in Smalltalk and
a client in a C/C++ language, then embeddability is one way to provide that
library to C/C++. Rolling one's own socket-based connection is another,
but fraught with complications. Basically embeddability does provide
something useful in the right context (hence my employer wanting me to
implement it). That in no way indicates that dynamic language systems
shouldn't continue to improve themselves. And being able to embed might
mean that occasionally a Smalltalk application gets much wider use than
might otherwise be the case.
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:
>> On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>> On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Igor, you're familiar with f-script?
>>>> not really, why asking?
>>> I know there's plenty of alternatives..
>>> And how do you see f-script could help us?
>>> It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use
>>> different platform , then what?
>>> I was pointing to f-script as an example of an existing embedded
>> The biggest issue with an embedded Smalltalk, IMHO, isn't the VM but the
>> libraries: what do you keep and why?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pharo-dev