Hi!

(waiting for the final flight back home, trying to write about all the
things that have been happening at OOPSLA - it's a lot!)

Dan Ingalls <Dan at SqueakLand.org> wrote:
> Something needs to be said at this juncture.  There are a number of reasons that the 3.3 run at modularization did not succeed.  It retained the name space experiment from my work on Environments, it forced some changes that could have remained backward compatible, it was invasive against Les Tyrell's exhortation, it was not embraced by the rest of the community in spite of a courageous and intense push by Henrik Gedenryd.  If any fault is to be ascribed for this particular false start, it should rest with me and not with Henrik.  I have made mistakes before and I intend to go on making them, hopefully not all the time.  Henrik put a huge amount of work into the project, for which he can feel proud, and I don't think anyone would fault the job he did within the context of the project.  There is much to be salvaged both from the code and from the early experience of trying to modularize the Squeak image.

This sums it up pretty good. IMO the "gambling" we did when pushing
Modules into 3.3a was a "correct" move at that time. It could have
turned out good but it didn't for various reasons. As others have
pointed out - we learn and move on. And we should make sure to salvage
all we can of the Modules effort so far.

Dan again:
> Having learned a lesson, we have the opportunity to again choose a path to a more modular world.  Examples exist in nearly every other mature Smalltalk, both of simple modules and more comprehensive packages.  I would like to see a module system that was completely independent of the rest of Squeak, along the lines that Les Tyrell suggests.  A move to life with SqueakMap should greatly encourage this property.

This sounds very much like the thoughts that we all shared at the
discussion at OOPSLA. Small steps, backwards compatibility, simplicity
and also freedom of choice are some of the values we should "guard" in
this process.

> Many people in our community have had experience with modules, even the chance to compare life with several different systems.  Now would be a good time to recommend (possibly for the second time) any approaches known to be simple and effective.

Exactly! The current evolution with a "package format agnostic"
SqueakMap really gives us the opportunity to try out and compare
different approaches. We already have two interesting techniques - SAR
and DVS. They are of course not at all solving the same problem but as
pieces in the puzzle they complement each other and both Ned and
Avi/Julian are moving those pieces forward.

I have been focusing on SM at OOPSLA and have taken all chances to
discuss and form agreement on the next steps for it with people like
Doug Way, Ned Konz, Avi Bryant, Roel Wuyts, Michael Rueger and more. I
will present a "roadmap" very soon on this list for SM.

And finally Dan again:
> "Under new management"
> Michael shared with me one other topic raised at the OOPSLA BOF, but not included in the public report.  Here's the wording I saw:

Actually, this came up the day after the BOF at CampSmalltalk but it
doesn't matter. Just so that people attending the BOF don't get
confused. :-)
 
> 	"The suggestion is to hand management of the update stream over to a group
> 	of experienced Squeakers. This group will manage the review and publishing
> 	process and have SqC as advisors in the background.
> 	Candidates right now are Göran, Doug, Ned and Tim (you did volunteer,
> 	didn't you? ;-) ). Volunteers, comments, vetos are welcome."
> 
> Believe it or not, this, too, agrees with current SqC thinking.  I think nothing could be more invigorating to our process going forward.  Presumably the migration of essentially everything but the kernel (and potentially even that) into SqueakMap will lead to territories responsibly managed by those who know the most about them.  Beyond the update process, some attention needs to be paid to the identification of stable releases.  It is my experience that there are "propitious" times for stable releases (generally on the eve of significant changes), and I think it will behoove us to evolve an informal mechanism for picking these times and a formal process for checking that SqueakMap packages sync'ed to a stable release get some decent QA.


I, Doug and Ned got a chance to talk this over in more detail (Tim
unfortunately took an earlier flight home) and we will within a few days
(after we have had a chance to summarize our thoughts and sync with Tim)
get back to you all with a post on the subject. I also talked with Craig
Latta at OOPSLA and he is also interested in helping out, and Daniel
Vainsencher has also said on the list that he is interested. So we are
not short on manpower.

> Looking forward to more reports from OOPSLA, to further comments on this thread, and to a winter of exciting new progress.
> 
> 	- Dan

Me too!

OOPSLA proved to us being there that the Squeak community is live and
kicking some serious butt - if you excuse my way with words. :-)
- Camp Smalltalk had even more Squeakers than previous years (well, it
felt like that anyway), even though we of course are just one big family
in Smalltalk land.
- A lot of the stuff being presented at OOPSLA like Traits from Andrew
and Nathanael (wow), all the cool magic from Roel (wow again), the very
interesting Chango VM from Stephen Pair (I want that) etc etc proves
that Squeak is definitely not standing still.

So... now we just need to find a good way to channel our efforts and
live in harmony with each other. :-) But more on that topic in the
upcoming post from Doug/Ned/me/Tim/Craig/Daniel.

regards, Göran