yeah, lets put another canister of fuel into the flame: hey, who needs that odd smalltalk syntax? who says that smalltalk source code should have original syntax? lets express it in JSON!!
On 24 April 2012 14:22, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 April 2012 14:17, Herby Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote: >> >> >> Igor Stasenko wrote: >>> >>> On 24 April 2012 11:54, Dale Henrichs<dhenr...@vmware.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stef, >>>> >>>> There is no Parser class and there is no Compiler class. There is a >>>> primitive call that takes method source, class, methodDictionary, etc. and >>>> produces a method installed in the methodDictionary. >>>> >>> so you can take 1st literal from such method and you done. or you >>> cannot access method's literals? >>> it of course not as simple as parsing the source, but if you cannot >>> avoid compilation.. >>> >>>> ... JSON is and was a pragmatic choice... >>>> >>> well, i did not realized that GemStone have no own parser/compiler >>> written in smalltalk. >> >> >> Neither does Amber in deploy mode, unless I am mistaken. >> >> Why do you ever think there must be a Smalltalk parser in any Smalltalk? You >> get used to it, I understand, but it is by no means a required thing. >> Smalltalk is Smalltalk without parser as well. >> >> JSON is great choice. Much better than anything proprietary, because of >> world-wide interoperability. >> > > Sorry, but you seem even more out of the context than me. > We're talking about tools for storing and loading smalltalk code.. > which implies having a working smalltalk > parser and compiler toolchain. > How else you can load smalltalk source code without having the way to parse > it? > If you don't parse nor compile it, it is just a bunch of letters. > >> Herby >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
