Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!news.maz.net!news.ppp.de!news.Hanse.DE!wavehh.hanse.de!cracauer
From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
Subject: Re: What makes Smalltalk better than ..
Message-ID: <1995Jan9.104916.18825@wavehh.hanse.de>
Organization: The Internet
References: <3ejion$t69@news1.delphi.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 10:49:16 GMT
Lines: 20

jsutherland@BIX.com (Jeff Sutherland) writes:

[...]

>Therefore, Dan Ingalls comment applied to current reality means the current
>Smalltalk engines must be smashed and rebuilt as OLE objects that
>interoperate as good citizens with other OLE objects as both client and
>server objects ,etc.

>This sort of fits in with Alan Kays comments at MIT last year when he
>presented his paper on the invention of Smalltalk.  He said Smalltalk had
>been around for 20 years.  It's time to redo it.  (Actually, he was much
>more pointed than that, but I wouldn't dare to repeat in it the Smalltalk
>forum without my bulletproof vest on, and also I didn't agree with his
>rather extreme position).

Nothingtheless, is there any kind of subscrition of what Kay said? Or
any other references regarding such a `smashed' Smalltalk?
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de> Fax +49 40 522 85 36
