This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Agile Buzz by James Robertson. Original Post: A Process for Smalltalk Evolution Feed Title: Richard Demers Blog Feed URL: http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/rssBlog/rademers-rss.xml Feed Description: Richard Demers on Smalltalk Latest Agile Buzz Posts Latest Agile Buzz Posts by James Robertson Latest Posts From Richard Demers Blog

In a reply to a comment in Smalltalk Evolution, I said I would "put a stake in the ground that others can throw rocks at." Here it is.

First, the current situation as I see it. Smalltalk was initially developed over a series of versions by a talented group of people at Xerox Parc, under the guidance of a true visionary (Alan Kay). It then went through a popularization phase by some of the original researchers (Adele Goldberg and others). During this phase, the language was stabilized and a number of products marketed. Then long came C , Java and other pale imitations that were better marketed, leaving Smalltalk to struggle for existence. During these periods, very little could be done to evolve the basic language. Now we again have a period of growth in use and a desire to enhance the basic language in order to keep ahead of the language development curve. But how is this to be accomplished?

On the one hand, we have at least three major Smalltalk products (Cincom VisualWorks, IBM VisualAge Smalltalk, and Squeak), and several minor products (Dolphin, Smalltalk/MT, etc). Each has its own engineering team and its own set of backers, and each wants to be in control of its own fate. The general attitude is that each will enhance Smalltalk in whatever ways they think best. It is hard to argue with this perspective.

But do we want one Smalltalk language that can be learned and promoted by a single large group of programmers? Or do we want to see it fracture along product lines where programmers who know one dialect cannot understand and code in other dialects? And do we want to see advancements in object-oriented language become the sole property of newcomers, like Ruby and Python? Without painting too bleak a picture, either we come together or we drift into obscurity - a footnote in programming language history.

So what can we do to come together in a way that respects differing opinions and goals yet enables the basic Smalltalk language to evolve and survive. Here is the "stake in the ground" that I propose.

1. The Smalltalk Industry council (STIC) once again appears to be moribund. Let's revive it by giving it something to do; let it be the sponsoring entity for a new Smalltalk Language Control Board (SLCB).
2. The SLCB should be staffed by a small group of experienced volunteer Smalltalkers, nominated and approved by the STIC, for a specific length of time.
3. The SLCB should be under the guidance of someone with Smalltalk experience, vision, and leadership skills. This too should be a matter for the STIC.
4. The SLCB should conduct periodic meetings; maybe once-a-year in person, and bimonthly online. Attendance by all interested parties is encouraged, but it should be emphasized that only the SLCB staff gets to vote.
5. The SLCB should conduct its business along the lines I describe in A Software Architecture Process.
6. It would then be up to each Smalltalk product to decide how and when they support the extensions - no pressure from anyone.

OK, that's my "stake in the ground." Throw rocks at it. Please.