This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Agile Buzz
by James Robertson.
Original Post: Smalltalk Evolution
Feed Title: Richard Demers Blog
Feed URL: http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/rssBlog/rademers-rss.xml
Feed Description: Richard Demers on Smalltalk
In Governing body--what about a head?, Vassili summarizes on-going discussions by several Smalltalk bloggers about the evolution of Smalltalk. Here are some further thoughts.
We are using the word evolution to mean change over time, with an unstated bias toward enhancement, but it would be a mistake to go too far with this metaphor. Biological systems evolve to meet environmental pressures, but not always in a direction we would consider positive. Devolution as well as evolution happens.
A key point is that we are talking about an artificial system and not a "natural" one. The implication that we should sit back and let nature take its course is just plain wrong headed. Artificial systems require intelligent, human designers. The only real question is how to continue the process of intelligent design. The alternative is devolution.
Looking specifically at Smalltalk, the initial design team at Xerox Parc did a brilliant job. They then threw it over the wall into the real world, where ~25 years of practical use has greatly expanded its range of use and the size of its class libraries, but there have been hardly any changes to the base language (syntax or base class libraries).
If we want to refocus on the base language, and I have seen several interesting proposals, then a design team must again take the reins and guide us to the next base level -- to Smalltalk/2.
That leaves us with organizational questions: who, when and how. But those questions have been successfully addressed for other artificial systems, and they can be for Smalltalk, too.
Previous Topic
