I clicked the console button and is like stuck loading http;//.../lively.JSON.js ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos Crosetti" <carlos.crosetti@mostar.com.ar> To: "Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini@gnu.org>; "Dan Ingalls" <dan@squeakland.org> Cc: <esug-list@lists.esug.org> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [Esug-list] Is he kidding? >I see the¨"loading" splashbox, it is taking more than 10 minutes from when >started, how much time it takes to load? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini@gnu.org> > To: "Dan Ingalls" <dan@squeakland.org> > Cc: <esug-list@lists.esug.org> > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:48 PM > Subject: Re: [Esug-list] Is he kidding? > > >> On 10/31/2010 11:32 PM, Dan Ingalls wrote: >>> http://lively-kernel.org/repository/webwerkstatt/Dan/OMeta-Smalltalk-Demo.xhtml >> >> Doesn't load in Firefox 3.6 (pistons spin forever), crashes the browser >> in Epiphany (WebKit-based). :( >> >> Paolo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Esug-list mailing list >> Esug-list@lists.esug.org >> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org >> >> >

Its not a joke. I would really like to have a full smalltalk support in browser, up to placing smalltalk in <script language="smalltalk"> .... It is great that JavaScript is prototype-based. And it is shame that its having such poor C-like syntax. What is interesting, that people exploiting a message passing with continuation and blocks-like programming style in javascript, which closely mimics smalltalk semantics. For instance, this is an example from JQuery library: $("div.title", wizard).each(function(index) { $(this) .next() .children(":button") .filter(".next, .previous") .click(function() { wizard.changeAccordion("activate", index + ($(this).is(".next") ? 1 : -1)) }); }); Looks familiar to us, isnt? And totally alien for C world :) This could be easily translated to smalltalk, to something like: (JQuery select: 'div.title') do: [:each :index | ((each next children: ':button') filter: '.next, .previous') click: [ wizard changeAccordion: ... ] yeah.. keyword selectors require wrapping with (), to do continuation, but still, its much more clean than js code. I remember discusison about introducing a special syntax which would allow to use continuations for keyword selectors, without need of wrapping then into parethesis. So, code like: ((self foo: bar) baz: 1) jump could be written as: self foo: bar | baz: 1 | jump which makes it even more clean and convenient to type, since you don't have to get back into beginning of message to put opening paren. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote: > Its not a joke. > I would really like to have a full smalltalk support in browser, up to > placing smalltalk in > <script language="smalltalk"> .... > > It is great that JavaScript is prototype-based. And it is shame that > its having such poor C-like syntax. > What is interesting, that people exploiting a message passing with > continuation and blocks-like programming style in javascript, which > closely mimics smalltalk semantics. > > For instance, this is an example from JQuery library: > > $("div.title", wizard).each(function(index) { >    $(this) >    .next() >    .children(":button") >    .filter(".next, .previous") >    .click(function() { >        wizard.changeAccordion("activate", index + > ($(this).is(".next") ? 1 : -1)) >    }); > }); > > Looks familiar to us, isnt? And totally alien for C world :) > > This could be easily translated to smalltalk, to something like: > > (JQuery select: 'div.title') do: [:each :index | >   ((each next children: ':button') filter: '.next, .previous') click: > [ wizard changeAccordion: ... ] > > > yeah.. keyword selectors require wrapping with (), to do continuation, > but still, its much more clean than js code. > I remember discusison about introducing a special syntax which would > allow to use continuations for keyword selectors, > without need of wrapping then into parethesis. So, code like: > > ((self foo: bar) baz: 1) jump > > could be written as: > > self foo: bar | baz: 1 | jump > > which makes it even more clean and convenient to type, since you don't > have to get back into beginning of message to put > opening paren. Hum, i'm wondering that maybe we should do more advertisement about Smalltalk to the Javascript community. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://doesnotunderstand.org/

Interesting idea. that can remove pain in the ass! In dolphin, i've invented this expression. [self foo: bar] --> [:it| it baz: 1] --> [:it| jump] It was kind of collect: on non-collection object. But, it is very clear your idea is better. Best Regards HwaJong Oh 2010. 11. 1., 아침 10:11, Igor Stasenko 작성: > Its not a joke. > I would really like to have a full smalltalk support in browser, up to > placing smalltalk in > <script language="smalltalk"> .... > > It is great that JavaScript is prototype-based. And it is shame that > its having such poor C-like syntax. > What is interesting, that people exploiting a message passing with > continuation and blocks-like programming style in javascript, which > closely mimics smalltalk semantics. > > For instance, this is an example from JQuery library: > > $("div.title", wizard).each(function(index) { > $(this) > .next() > .children(":button") > .filter(".next, .previous") > .click(function() { > wizard.changeAccordion("activate", index + > ($(this).is(".next") ? 1 : -1)) > }); > }); > > Looks familiar to us, isnt? And totally alien for C world :) > > This could be easily translated to smalltalk, to something like: > > (JQuery select: 'div.title') do: [:each :index | > ((each next children: ':button') filter: '.next, .previous') click: > [ wizard changeAccordion: ... ] > > > yeah.. keyword selectors require wrapping with (), to do continuation, > but still, its much more clean than js code. > I remember discusison about introducing a special syntax which would > allow to use continuations for keyword selectors, > without need of wrapping then into parethesis. So, code like: > > ((self foo: bar) baz: 1) jump > > could be written as: > > self foo: bar | baz: 1 | jump > > which makes it even more clean and convenient to type, since you don't > have to get back into beginning of message to put > opening paren. > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > Esug-list@lists.esug.org > http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org