Yes I agree.  Java is the new Cobol.  There are many Java systems that 
will take hordes to maintain.  The language is a step up from C, but 
not what Smalltalkers are used to.  The shortcomings in the language 
and the environment (J2EE) by tools that "make it easier" to use.  But 
the executing artifacts are at a very low level of abstraction, and the 
designs are very complex.  Many of the libraries are designed for the 
most complex case, with no reasonable set of defaults.  With JDK 5.0 
they are starting to respond to this, but in a more static direction, 
that adds even more coupling between different parts of the code.  The 
problem with strong typed languages like Java is that they bind a 
collection of methods to a "type" and then propagate this binding all 
through a system.  Then eventually that binding needs to change, be 
extended, or two bindings merged, and you find out that the effort for 
a small change makes the entire system unstable!

Here is to hoping that Smalltalk the language evolves, not just 
Smalltalk the image.  This does not mean the syntax needs to change, 
but the core concepts expressed in language level objects.  For 
example, packaging and versioning of code should be in the language, 
not an add-on that is imposed on top of the language.  The objects that 
map from packaging units to executable artifacts, need to be part of 
the compiled language to ensure they are treated well, and they need to 
have first-class object representations that can be manipulated and 
read at run-time.  In Objective-C you can append methods to a class 
without modifying its source.  And these appendages are first class 
constructs, that in Smalltalk would be accessible as meta-data.  These 
class fractions could then belong to one or more packages.  Having 
first class objects allows proper tracking of origins, dependencies, 
etc.  If versioning was part of the language for specifying a class, 
then when you reference the class for inheritance you would specify the 
compatibility rules with your superclass, etc.  Libraries are no 
substitute for a good language.

Michael



On Dec 12, 2004, at 4:54 PM, Milan Zimmermann wrote:

> Stef,
>
> Having lurked on this list for more than a year, and seeing you 
> putting almost
> impossible amount of time and effort into this, I feel sad and will 
> miss your
> posts but it's very understandable that you need to spend more time 
> with your
> family and give more time to yourself and your research. Hope we will 
> be able
> to play with your results (traits and more) in some other form even if 
> not
> called Squeak. FWIW I believe there is quite a bit Smalltalk and other
> non-Java and non-.net environments need in terms of IDEs and features 
> to
> attract new developers, it's hard, but hopefully development world 
> will not
> be in the hands of 2 environments that are non dynamic (and almost the 
> same)
> for the next 20 years. Thanks and most important, cheer up, enjoy your 
> family
> and new work, Milan
>
> On December 12, 2004 03:44 pm, stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> Ok guys,
>>
>> I tried to help building what could be a cool system but I failed.
>> So I pull the plug and will focus on my research, because Squeak was
>> simply extra work. It was fun but extra work.
>> Now I will only work on our research because this is much more fun in
>> fact.
>>
>> I got a new job and I will have to build a lab and live between two
>> countries for more than a year. So I think that I will pay attention 
>> to
>> me and my family.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> PS: I'm also bit tired about all that (people talking a lot, declaring
>> constraints or duties that others would have to do, ....)
>> PSPS:  We are far too messy to get something out as a community, too
>> bad (look at the squeakFoundation in case someone wants to do 
>> something
>> this is the way). May be this is the bazar and normal process I do not
>> know but this is too much for me.
>
>