"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb / cesmail.net> writes:

> 3. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that a non-GUI Smalltalk
> core would be as compact and efficient as Forth's core is. I'm not sure
> about the converse, though -- I've got a full-blown Forth, Inc.
> SwiftForth package that totals well under 100 megabytes including the
> GUI IDE and two decent-sized PDF manuals. And I'm pretty sure most
> Smalltalk virtual machines don't include an assembler. :)

A Smalltalk core likely would be bigger, since it has to do more.
(Just think of garbage collection.)  IIRC, there are stripped-down
Squeaks that "only" need 300k.  (That's 30 nice Forths... ;-))

And every reasonably JITting Smalltalk of course includes an
assembler.

> Where I think an IDE is absolutely crucial is two places:
>
> 1. Dealing with large quantities of other peoples' code, and
>
> 2. For building a *multi-language* project.
>
> I'm working on a project right now that uses five languages: GiNaC, C++,
> Ruby, Python and SWIG. I need an IDE to help me with five different
> syntax/semantics arrangements. I'm not even sure there *is* such a
> beast, but I suspect KDevelop is close.

No problem for Emacs.

> I tried to learn the Squeak IDE and got terribly frustrated quickly. It
> was so radically different from all the paradigms I was familiar with --
> the mouse bindings alone were confusing beyond belief. Sure, I could
> drag windows around on the desktop and click buttons and tabs, but that
> was about it. I'm sure a Squeak programmer would have similar problems
> with SwiftForth. :)

(I've just discovered today that the Self IDE supports basic Emacs
keybindings.  Mmmhhh... :)  Try it if your box can run it.)

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org