21st Century Smalltalk

August 31, 2006

The Big Idea

Filed under: Smalltalk Language — pfisk @ 5:13 pm

I recently came across an original quote from Alan Kay where he discusses the “big idea” behind Smalltalk:

Smalltalk is not only NOT its syntax or the class library,
it is not even about classes. I'm sorry that I long ago
coined the term "objects" for this topic because it gets
many people to focus on the lesser idea.     

The big idea is "messaging" -- that is what the kernal of
Smalltalk/Squeak is all about (and it's something that was
never quite completed in our Xerox PARC phase). The Japanese
have a small word -- ma -- for "that which is in between"
-- perhaps the nearest English equivalent is "interstitial".     

The key in making great and growable systems is much more to
design how its modules communicate rather than what their internal
properties and behaviors should be.     

Think of the internet -- to live, it
(a) has to allow many different kinds of ideas and realizations
that are beyond any single standard and
(b) to allow varying degrees of safe interoperability between
these ideas.

The full message from Alan Kay is here.

The guiding philosophy of Vista Smalltalk is to be a flexible tool for building applications from both local and remote components – the language syntax is only a part of the story.

5 Comments »

  1. hmm, sounds like Erlang

    Comment by dennis — September 8, 2006 @ 11:00 am

  2. Interesting.
    I agree that “the language syntax is only a part of the story”.
    Do not agree that the “big idea is messaging”.

    How people will know about the other part (that are not objects,
    nor components) in an architecture heavilly build based
    in ’70s technology (using only encapsulation and
    promoting to conmtinue failing with components)?

    Something must be done, based of Smalltalk (of course),
    as first evidence of the limits of Object Orientation.
    But…
    How to surpass the limits in more than 20years?

    best,
    Ale.

    Comment by Alejandro Reimondo — March 19, 2007 @ 9:08 pm

  3. In practice, messaging has proven to be a useful abstraction.

    My guess is that the next big step will be the use of formal representations assisted by AI software. I will write about this probably sometime in April.

    Comment by pfisk — March 20, 2007 @ 2:51 pm

  4. Formal representation does not guaranty the success of instantiation.
    Most of the efforts has been put on formal design and modeling, so the limits can be observed when reflecting on the results.
    Doing the same as we has done during the last years is not enought… and we can see that only produce uncertainty.

    Alan recognizes that always is something that can´t be encasulated by any object definition. It is a whell known observation. I simply do not agree that it is in messages, because messages are NOT objects.
    (if we think that messages are objects, then we are saying that all can be encapsulated/defined in a concept/object).

    Building a machine (or any other gadget, w/ IA in case it exists) that write a representation simply does not solve the problem, it hides the problem (distracting effect of OO models).

    I am looking for an oportunity to share a point of view, a point of view that is related with Smalltalk use/activities, and is NOT simply adding more objects/messages…

    Smalltalk, as an open system let us surpass the limits of Object Orientation.
    But most of the people see Smalltalk… as an Object Oriented Language…
    to write object based rules of closed systems.

    best,
    Ale.

    Comment by Alejandro Reimondo — April 6, 2007 @ 9:44 am

  5. Smalltalk provides a useful abstraction, but it is not a magic solution.

    There are more formal methods of representing programs that are more useful when programs are very large or have complex synchronization issues (eg multiprocessors).

    Charles Simonyi has started a company for “Intentional Programming”
    http://www.intentsoft.com/

    Also, check out the Kestrel Institute for interesting approaches
    http://www.kestrel.edu/home.html

    Comment by pfisk — April 6, 2007 @ 8:16 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.