I've been toying some more with Smalltalk v. Lisp for some projects. I'm not really sold on the "object-oriented programming works for everything" idea (although as far as I'm concerned, Smalltalk does have the best embodiment of a true OO environment), but for rapidly prototyping some stuff in which I want visual control and feedback, it's hard to beat Squeak. Besides, I like Smalltalk, even if I like Lisp more. I blame it all my exposure to NeXT boxen (which was after my exposure to Symbolics boxen). ;]
I'd like to keep the finished product (as well as the code releases up till then) in Lisp though, so that I can back out and jump to a higher, more generic abstraction layer. I was writing in my personal catalog of ideas a while back about the potential of a Smalltalk to CLOS/CLOS to Smalltalk translator. Perhaps this would be a good time to rehash that.
Hacking together more of Clever (my openCOLA clerver in Scheme) as well. Turns out I need to implement XPath tools in Scheme (I haven't found them anywhere yet). I'll give the code away to PLT and anyone else who wants it. Yes, I am a member of the Underground.
Since I may be dabbling in Smalltalk anyway, can I recreate E's basic model in Smalltalk? Would it be of any practical use? I think it may, but there are probably issues with being sequential. I should ask markm before doing any of this, he's probably already done it.
If I get really organized today, I'll put together those implementations of Rijndael in Scheme and Smalltalk I was thinking about earlier today -- more for just kicks than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if I could get really well performing code out of a Scheme version compiled with Stalin, though.
I'm so glad Rijndael won. Makes me feel as though the papers I submitted to the AES during the public commentary (and other phases) paid off.