The future of SM...
Martin Wirblat
sql.mawi at t-link.de
Fri Jul 16 08:46:48 UTC 2004
Hi Göran,
>
>> On 15 juil. 04, at 17:19, lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
>>> 3. Number two is, as you suggest, to have dependencies between
>>> packages.
>>> They do not need to be complex as we get going, but please do make
>>> them
>>> based on packages not particular versions. At the distribution level,
>>> the dependencies should be like "Scamper needs URL", not "Scamper 1.5
>>> needs URL 1.3". This is because, within a distribution, users almost
>>> always want to have the newest versions of the packages.
>
...
>
>I agree with you Stephane. IMHO the only thing that I can promise is
>that a certain set of *releases* (=versions) work together. I can't
>promise that the newest release of Y works with X 1.2, because that is
>*in the future*.
>
Putting modules together is similar to "normal" programming, just on a
larger scale with a coarser granularity. We are expecting a Smalltalk
Class to stay the same when we change something (minor) in it in the
sense that it should serve its clients the same way it did before.
Programming is speaking a language for our brains. Adding version numbers
would be an explosion of the vocabulary. To give classes or methods
version numbers would be nonsense. You want to assure that the core
functionality is as universal as possible and that it stays the same as
long as possible. Every programming style which does not adhere to this
principle is less efficient if not impossible. And because "moduling" is
programming, it is useful to work towards what Lex proposed quite some
times now, modules that work together regardless of there version.
The same argument applies to UUIDs. Working with modules is programming,
and using UUIDs in the language necessary to do so, is a step backwards.
Please don't say here, that everyone can use names. Real world shows that
the UUIDs are creeping in everywhere. If SM modules will live up to what
you hope for, we are going to have a Smalltalk with random vocabulary, if
we can't get rid of the UUIDs.
To answer your original question, I think your work on SM is really great
and has made a big psychological impact on everyone interested in Squeak.
There is no need to fear that it may become obsolete just because a
somewhat different alternative may arise somewhere in the future.
regards
Martin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|