Whitespace as syntax (was Re: Python Rocks!)

[Quinn Dunkan]

>Bijan Parsia <bparsia at email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> But seriously, the *size* of the Squeak base is rather large. The
>> biggest reasons for not using it as a drop in replacement for Python or
>> Perl is that 1) it's not *structured* to be a drop in replacement for
>> Python or Perl, and 2) the *content* of it's class library doesn't (yet)
>> cover a lot of things that people use Python and Perl for (especially on
>> the *nix size of things).
>>
>> One large advantage that both Perl and Python have is that they fit in
>> well with a fairly common mindset that stems from certain set
>> programming/working environments. This is more or less explicit in their
>> designs. Squeak and Smalltalk are not a smooth fit for that mindset, so
>> really mastering them typically requires a shift in deeply held habits.

Ok, this is getting a bit OT, but what the hey:

This is a good expression of my problem with smalltalk.  I like the language,
I'm impressed with squeak, but I don't see how I can use it.  The first
problem is that I don't want to use the built-in editor, I have my own tools
and I prefer them for a reason.  Although I'm sure I could have squeak import
source from external files, it seems like that would be fighting the language.
The other problem is that the things I do usually involve lots of interaction
between other programs, filesystems, etc. and work non-interactively.  Has
anyone done a #!/usr/local/bin/smalltalk just-another-scripting-language?
Would it even be smalltalk?

>Only-half-a-joke: I think that Squeak's the biggest competitor not to
>Python, but GNOME and KDE -- the world just hasn't realized it yet.

It would be interesting to see a squeak system running on hardware ala oberon
or something (perhaps there is one?).  And not just aimed at being a
code-writing environment, but a complete graphical environment.  I'm sure this
has been done before, but on modern systems?  Hmmm... squeak + ggi + X
compatibility layer....