[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
|