[Modules] Getting on a common page

Allen Wirfs-Brock Allen_Wirfs-Brock at Instantiations.com
Thu Aug 16 16:49:10 UTC 2001


Since Dan and Dave Thomas asked me to participate in this discussion I've 
been thinking how I could best contribute.  As I'm not going to have the 
time to actually implement anything I think the roles I can probably play 
are tour guide and ideologist.  This is a lot of work, good ideas, and 
experience both inside and outside the Smalltalk community relating to 
modularity.  As a tour guide I can make some of this visible and perhaps 
provide some interpretation.

Smalltalk is built upon an ideology of objects. The ideology binds the 
community giving them a common perspective on computing and a common 
language to communicate about computation. In looking at the on going 
discussions on the [Modules] topic it's easy to see that there isn't yet a 
common ideology of Modules for Squeak.  You need one!

The potential scope covered by the subject heading "modularity" is 
huge.  It essentially covers every aspect of what used to be call 
"programming in large". As I was composing my thoughts on things I would 
like to share with this list I realized that I was developing the mental 
outline of what could be a book length work.  In order to make progress we 
are going to have to focus on the essentials.  Henrick has already said as 
much:

>I previously (off-list, not your fault that you didn't get it) argued that
>we need to modularize the modularity effort itself, if we are to ever get
>anything done. To do so we need separable, small, incremental steps. We need
>to identify  the 'core' that must be done and should be done first.

I heartily agree. I would urge everybody with an interest in this area to 
focus, for the next few weeks, on defining that core.

Allen





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list