On 7 March 2012 19:16, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras <vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
http://wingolog.org/archives/2011/10/19/the-user-in-the-loop
andy wingo discuss embedded vs extensions and suggest that extension is better because you put the user on the loop with better tool support.
yes, but this is orthogonal. Â 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++. Â Rolling one's own socket-based connection is another, but fraught with complications. Â Basically embeddability does provide something useful in the right context (hence my employer wanting me to implement it). Â That in no way indicates that dynamic language systems shouldn't continue to improve themselves. Â And being able to embed might mean that occasionally a Smalltalk application gets much wider use than might otherwise be the case.
true. i barely see reason why embeddability and extensibility should be antonogized.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lenglish5@cox.net> Â 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 smalltalk.
The biggest issue with an embedded Smalltalk, IMHO, isn't the VM but the libraries: what do you keep and why?
L.
-- best, Eliot
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.