We might start out by pointing out that the board does not set technical policy. Tim has been quite vociferous about that and I agree.
I would say that my statement has been misconstrued.
The question was - What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk? My answer was from a social/market/adoption perspective - you seem to have taken it from a technical roadmap perspective.
What I meant when I said other languages seem to be approaching Smalltalk is that they adopt more ST features all the time and the prejudicial barriers are dropping. It is a fine time to win converts and grow the user base. Consider how many people no longer think garbage collection is an intolerable drain on performance. IOW, I think the future of Smalltalk is bright and that it can gain mind/ marketshare as a language. So I see a future of growing user base and rising visibility.
On Feb 21, 2007, at 1:33 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
Is a discussion of these issues even worthwhile in your understanding?
Yes. As with anything, there are things that drive me nuts about Squeak that could be improved. I do understand that a better packaging system is needed and am open to ideas about how best to approach it. PackageInfo is pretty good, but we could do better. I'd like to see a system that allowed package unloading as well. Such a thing would undo package overrides.
Should we actively pursue changes?
Yes - with some caution. I'm still waiting to see how Traits plays out. Certainly other forks can be taken to try stuff.
Do we need to protect the pureness of Smalltalk?
No, but we do need to protect the stability. My platform - if you bothered to go read it, is about making Squeak useful for making commercial quality things. http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5922
-Todd Blanchard