Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:422 comp.sys.mac:10197
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!hao!husc6!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnt
From: johnt@mmintl.UUCP (John Tangney)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac Smalltalk from Apple
Keywords: Smalltalk,Mac,MacApp
Message-ID: <2630@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: 17 Dec 87 17:09:37 GMT
References: <323@uhmanoa.UUCP>
Reply-To: johnt@mmintl.UUCP (John Tangney)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT.
Lines: 28

In article <323@uhmanoa.UUCP> sec@uhmanoa.UUCP (James Chang) writes:
>regarding forthcoming smalltalk from Apple.  
.........
>     It certainly would 
>make smalltalk popular although it deviates from standard smalltalk.   
>I wish I can beta-test this smalltalk. Are you listening apple ?

Yes, I saw it too.  I seem to recall that after speaking to the folks at
Apple and ParcPlace, it emerged that Apple's Smalltalk is *significantly*
different from Smalltalk-80.  I would like to know just *how* different, and
where the differences are.  Apart from MVC paradigm, are there any other
serious impediments to portability?  

In the Mac world, MacApp makes more sense than MVC, but on the other hand it
would be nice if portability of any developed stuff could be maintained.
Currently, Smalltalk-80 is one of the few systems which do allow true
portability (don't flame me if that's not true, just explain :-) ), and it
would be a pity to sacrifice that.

My reason for wanting Smalltalk-80 compatibility is that I want to use the
HyperScore ToolKit from ParcPlace.  How much work would it take to port
HyperScore to Apple Smalltalk?  Is it worth it, seeing that Smalltalk-80
lets you talk to the rest of the Mac?

Anyone at Apple and ParcPlace have any comments?

All the best
johnt