Fwd: how to get arg and print on the output

> st?phane ducasse wrote:
> >>>On recent  versions of VW:
> >>>  Stdout nextPutAll: 'Helo World'; flush
> >
> >
> >Can we get the same in squeak?
>
> I'll eat my hat if works on Windows - a GUI program has no stdout so
> that such an invokation (unless done from a special "command line VM")
> simply cannot have any useful effect.

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:53:48PM -0700, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> st?phane ducasse wrote:
>>>>> On recent  versions of VW:
>>>>>  Stdout nextPutAll: 'Helo World'; flush
>>>
>>> Can we get the same in squeak?
>> I'll eat my hat if works on Windows - a GUI program has no stdout so
>> that such an invokation (unless done from a special "command line VM")
>> simply cannot have any useful effect.
>
> I don't know about VW, but it works fine on Windows with Squeak(*).
> Standard output goes to the console, so you can open a console and
> write to standard output. The console conveniently displays itself
> in a separate window, and behaves more or less as you might expect.
> The console window can be opened and closed as needed.

>>>> Can we get the same in squeak?
>>> I'll eat my hat if works on Windows - a GUI program has no stdout  
>>> so that such an invokation (unless done from a special "command  
>>> line VM") simply cannot have any useful effect.
>> I don't know about VW, but it works fine on Windows with Squeak(*).
>> Standard output goes to the console, so you can open a console and
>> write to standard output. The console conveniently displays itself
>> in a separate window, and behaves more or less as you might expect.
>> The console window can be opened and closed as needed.
>
> But what would be the point of that? The main use of stdout and  
> stdin lies in the ability of doing I/O redirection. Creating new  
> consoles (which is admittedly trivial) is not helping with that.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>

> David T. Lewis wrote:
> >I don't know about VW, but it works fine on Windows with Squeak(*).
> >Standard output goes to the console, so you can open a console and
> >write to standard output. The console conveniently displays itself
> >in a separate window, and behaves more or less as you might expect.
> >The console window can be opened and closed as needed.
>
> But what would be the point of that? The main use of stdout and stdin
> lies in the ability of doing I/O redirection. Creating new consoles
> (which is admittedly trivial) is not helping with that.

>>> I'll eat my hat if works on Windows - a GUI program has no stdout  
>>> so that such an invokation (unless done from a special "command  
>>> line VM") simply cannot have any useful effect.
>> I don't know about VW, but it works fine on Windows with Squeak(*).
>> Standard output goes to the console, so you can open a console and
>> write to standard output. The console conveniently displays itself
>> in a separate window, and behaves more or less as you might expect.
>> The console window can be opened and closed as needed.
>
> But what would be the point of that? The main use of stdout and  
> stdin lies in the ability of doing I/O redirection. Creating new  
> consoles (which is admittedly trivial) is not helping with that.

> On 8/15/06, stéphane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'm fed up to see people coming to squeak and after saying that they
>> use Ruby for scripting (writing small program
>> that perform string manipulations and output some results). We have
>> good regexp packages. For these people having a
>> result printed in a console is important and I would like to have the
>> same possibility in Squeak.  They do not like/understand
>> the idea of an IDE but want to see the results at their prompt.
>
> To be more precise, Smalltalk gives the impression (at least that's
> what it gives to me as a beginner) of being an autistic system,
> trapped inside its image. A squeak image looks more like yet another
> OS installation to administrate than a tool that integrates in an
> existing OS.

> Mind you I really like Smalltalk because it's so much more clean, but
> right now I'll still use Ruby when I have to write a 20-line script
> just to automate simple stuff. It's simply faster to fire up emacs and
> edit a file than setup a new image, load/create a monticello package,
> etc
>
> It's not trivial to pipe stuff to/from other shell commands, to give
> arguments from the command line, etc. Basically it's not
> straightforward to use it as a replacement for bash or ruby. So for
> most linux guys I know it seems useless because they can't integrate
> it with their existing tools and habits.

>>
>> Right - so this really only applies to headless command line use. So
>> why not create a special squeak shell for them?
>>
>> You could create a stripped image with OSProcess preloaded, write a
>> small shell script or launcher program (say, "squeash") that runs a
>> headless VM with the image, et voilà, Squeak for scripting.
>
> Exact! And with a syntax for writing method and class without !! and !
> I will give a try at that.

> stéphane ducasse a écrit :
>>>
>>> Right - so this really only applies to headless command line use. So
>>> why not create a special squeak shell for them?
>>>
>>> You could create a stripped image with OSProcess preloaded, write a
>>> small shell script or launcher program (say, "squeash") that runs a
>>> headless VM with the image, et voilà, Squeak for scripting.
>>
>> Exact! And with a syntax for writing method and class without !! and !
>> I will give a try at that.
>
> (hi,) an example of syntax?

> florent trolat schrieb:
>> stéphane ducasse a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Right - so this really only applies to headless command line use. So
>>>> why not create a special squeak shell for them?
>>>>
>>>> You could create a stripped image with OSProcess preloaded, write a
>>>> small shell script or launcher program (say, "squeash") that runs a
>>>> headless VM with the image, et voilà, Squeak for scripting.
>>>
>>> Exact! And with a syntax for writing method and class without !! and !
>>> I will give a try at that.
>>
>> (hi,) an example of syntax?
>
> I like Ian's:
>
>     http://piumarta.com/pepsi/pepsi.html
>
> There are others, like
>
>     http://www.double.co.nz/smallscript/byexample.htm
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>

>
> Package declare: 'ColoredPointPackage'.
>
> Point < ColoredPpoint
> variables: 'x y' ;
> classvar: 'Foo'
>
> ColoredPoint>>foo: zork
> [  <category: 'foobar'>
>
>> <author: 'sd' date: '24/06/2006'>
>>
> ljkljl
> ^ self
>         ]
>

> Couple of years back I used something quite similar to Ian's  
> version - the main difference was that instead of prototypes it  
> used classes so it would look like this:
>
> Object subclass: #Point definition: #[
>     | x y |
>     magnitude [
>         ^((x * x) + (y * y)) sqrt
>     ]
> ]
>
> (I still have an ~400k image based on this stuff ;-) The trick in  
> the above is that I redefined #[] to mean a "token array" that  
> would be processed as part of the #subclass:definition: message so  
> it retained the expression nature of class definitions. It's kind  
> of cool but also overkill - these days I'd go straight for human  
> readable syntax instead of fancy parser tricks ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> florent trolat schrieb:
>>> stéphane ducasse a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Right - so this really only applies to headless command line  
>>>>> use. So why not create a special squeak shell for them?
>>>>>
>>>>> You could create a stripped image with OSProcess preloaded,  
>>>>> write a small shell script or launcher program (say, "squeash")  
>>>>> that runs a headless VM with the image, et voilà, Squeak for  
>>>>> scripting.
>>>>
>>>> Exact! And with a syntax for writing method and class without !!  
>>>> and !
>>>> I will give a try at that.
>>>
>>> (hi,) an example of syntax?
>> I like Ian's:
>>     http://piumarta.com/pepsi/pepsi.html
>> There are others, like
>>     http://www.double.co.nz/smallscript/byexample.htm
>> - Bert -
>

> Yeap I like the one of pepsi (in fact I really like the { } for C),
> this is really excellent.
> but for Smalltalk I prefer that one that is closer to Smalltalk one.
>
> > KernelPackage
> > import: Point.
>
> or
> Point from: KernelPackage
>
> >
> > Package declare: 'ColoredPointPackage'.
> >
> > Point < ColoredPpoint
> > variables: 'x y' ;
> > classvar: 'Foo'
> >
> > ColoredPoint>>foo: zork
> > [  <category: 'foobar'>
> >
> >> <author: 'sd' date: '24/06/2006'>
> >>
> > ljkljl
> > ^ self
> >         ]
> >
>
>   ColoredPoint class>> new
> [ ^ self basicNew ]
>
>
>
>

>
> best,
> Ale
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stéphane ducasse" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:25 PM
> Subject: Re: how to get arg and print on the output
>
>
>> Yeap I like the one of pepsi (in fact I really like the { } for C),
>> this is really excellent.
>> but for Smalltalk I prefer that one that is closer to Smalltalk one.
>>
>>> KernelPackage
>>> import: Point.
>>
>> or
>> Point from: KernelPackage
>>
>>>
>>> Package declare: 'ColoredPointPackage'.
>>>
>>> Point < ColoredPpoint
>>> variables: 'x y' ;
>>> classvar: 'Foo'
>>>
>>> ColoredPoint>>foo: zork
>>> [  <category: 'foobar'>
>>>
>>>> <author: 'sd' date: '24/06/2006'>
>>>>
>>> ljkljl
>>> ^ self
>>>         ]
>>>
>>
>>   ColoredPoint class>> new
>> [ ^ self basicNew ]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>