Dear Sean, Geert et al, my first attempt. 1) Why: For coders, it's fun; Smalltalk is like a drug that you get addictd to. And why is that? It's because Smalltalk is productive and forgiving; productive _because_ it is forgiving. - Statically-typed languages say: assume you are clever. This is an IDE for coders who are clever enought to be right first time. - Smalltalk says: assume you have a lot to learn. This is an IDE for coders who are often wrong first time around. So, why? Because you will succeed in the real world, where you and your colleagues always have a lot to learn about every new task, not only in the imaginary world where flawless geeks grasp their work in a flash. 2) How: see my Value of Smalltalk talk in http://www.esug.org/data/ReportsFromNiallRoss/CSUGFrankfurtReport.pdf In brief: - The basic rule about optimisation - Do it later! - Static-typing: a gigantic, constraining, up-front optimisation 3) What: see my lists at the start of the ESUG 2011 conference page or on the poster (Thought: are these therefore too focussed on the what, not the why and how? I will review. Opinions welcome.) The above is in relation to mainstream languages. If I were discussing Smalltalk with a Rubyist I would a) be more respectiful of their language b) point at Smalltalk's maturity c) point at another value of Smalltalk - exceptionally easy to learn, easy to read. It was designed to be so from the start, and it is so. That's a why in relation to other dynamic languages. An aspect of the how is described in my old pages http://www.desk.org:8080/CampSmalltalk/new%20code%20syntax Yours faithfully Niall Ross Geert Claes wrote:
Hi Sean, I liked Simon's talk too. So following Simon's theory and start with the "why", then "how" followed by "what":
Why: Why does Smalltalk (still) exist, what does the Smalltalk community believe in and probably most importantly why should anyone care? How: How does Smalltalk do what it does, how is it designed, is it usable, intuitive, powerful ...? What: What does Smalltalk do, following Sean's examples; provide developer productivity, platform independence ...
Looking at the above I really have a feeling that Smalltalk's "Why" already is - and always has been - very strong.
The "what" is probably another reason why Smalltalk is still around after all these years. Smalltalk does provide powerful developer productivity and did lead the way in a myriad of other areas ... which other languages and/or IDE's have since taken on board.
The "how" is where Smalltalk's Achilles' heel is. Recent success stories did create a resurgence of interest in Smalltalk as it did wonders for Smalltalk's perceived usefulness. Smalltalk still needs to focus more on the "how" in order not to lose those all important opinion leaders and early adopters that are fascinated by the "why" but have a gut feeling and feel like given the "perceived ease-of-use" Smalltalk may not be exactly what they are after. Find the right recipe to improve the "how", the design, look-and-feel and usability and these early adopters will stay and Smalltalk will cross the chasm and influence the early majority :)
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Spreading-Smalltalk-tp3435227p3435954.html Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________