On 7 March 2012 19:16, Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras > <vonbecm...@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. 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++. Rolling one's own socket-based connection is another, but > fraught with complications. Basically embeddability does provide something > useful in the right context (hence my employer wanting me to implement it). > That in no way indicates that dynamic language systems shouldn't continue > to improve themselves. 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 <lengli...@cox.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lengli...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Igor, you're familiar with f-script? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.fscript.org/ >>>>> >>>> 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.
