I take the liberty to forward to squeak-dev, as I moved the
discussion there.
Sorry for the inconvenience...
Markus
>
> Hi,
>
> Ruby is certainly very nice for scripting, but it falls flat on its
> face exactly where all file-based languages have problems --
> debugging is painful. Let's face it, irb is simply not a
> substitute for the Smalltalk environment.
>
> Rather than develop a complete environment for Ruby, it seems to me
> far more interesting and simpler too to see what it would take to
> make Smalltalk more suitable for scripting.
>
> I believe that activities like this are needed to help the Squeak
> community move forward.
>
> Oscar
>
> On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:10, Colin Putney wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:52 AM, Markus Gaelli wrote:
>>
>>> Professor Nierstrasz (liking the IDE of Squeak and Smalltalk a
>>> lot, but starting to build Ruby scripts for convenience (#!)
>>> reasons) asked Marcus and me about the possibility of having
>>> Squeak as a good script writing engine on the one hand and a
>>> script executor on the other hand.
>>
>> My guess is that it's not worth the effort. Ruby makes a good
>> language for command-line scripts - it's got a Smalltalk-like
>> object model, blocks, decent libraries and good access to other
>> command-line tools. Why not just use that?
>>
>> Why all the sudden interest in making a scripting language out of
>> Squeak? As a community we need to get our own house in order and
>> figure out how to manage the code we've got with the people we've
>> got. Then we can think about reaching out to other communities, if
>> that seems like a good idea.
>>
>> grumble, grumble.
>>
>> Colin
>
Locked
