Re: Squeak to .Net Bridge: This looks interesting... [meta-douglasp].
MAKE SMALLTALK THE HUB!
There's no reason why we cannot make Smalltalk play by other peoples
rules and stick our rules on top. Trying to make a Smalltalk play IN
other peoples rules is near impossible (ever tried playing a thought
game of a Smalltalk that re-written in C without a VM?). But why not
make the Smalltalk play by their rules a little, instead of our current
situation: not at all.
The thing I like about this idea is that it is orthagonal to
existing Smalltalk behaviour. Things in ST that subclass off Class play
as normal, then along side Class in the Meta hierarchy would be
CStructure and JavaClass and DotNetClass... It'd do away with these
miriad of .NET bridge frameworks, it'd outclass S# (because you can
receive foreign .NET objects and just 'use them') and it'd make for a
very extensible system in to the future. [Michael Lucas-Smith]
Some time ago I recall listening to
Alan Kay talk about smalltalk and he was surprised that nobody had come
up with something to extend other than Class. Class was fine for what
they were doing but there was nothing about smalltalk that made you
case everything on the class class. I think Michael is on to something
here. So how do you go about doing what yuou propose?
7:31:53 AM 
|
