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: bschwab@anest.ufl.edu Tel: (352) 273-6785 FAX: (352) 392-7029

...

...

damien.pollet@gmail.com 01/19/09 7:10 PM >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 00:47, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project