> On 09 Jan 2015, at 10:22, Atlas <e...@chello.at> wrote: > > In my humble opinion, there is no point battling naysayers: the energy > required is best spent with people sharing a vision, improving the system > and experimenting with concepts to help us tackle the complexity of large > systems. Smalltalk is only the beginning, not the final solution.
Yes, indeed. > As for corporate and private computing: Trust is a big issue. With recent > events, maybe a bigger issue than ever. Corporations and users need to trust > their software. Smalltalk provides a degree of transparency and > accessibility not found in other systems. If you don't know what your > application is doing, you simply plug it apart and inspect it. The > uniformity of the system makes this process far easier than inspecting a > mountain of, for instance, C code. > Then, there is the problem of language integration and obsoletion. It is > funny that many corporations still rely on a handful of trendy languages to > solve all kinds of problems. Some have already realized that polyglot > programming is the way to go and Smalltalk provides an ideal basis to do > this. Yes. > However, we have to demonstrate that we can build better, larger systems in > a far more productive and comprehensible fashion. What we need is to > establish a unified systems architecture and Smalltalk is an ideal > candidate. But there is still a long way ahead (but the malleability of > Smalltalk might make it easy for us to explore new horizons and set new > directions). The naysayers will, inevitably, follow. I don't know about one unified architecture, the world is too diverse for that. Indeed the best thing to do is to build really cool real-life business applications that are successful. That is what the success stories are all about. Leading by example. The rest (people, resources, money, jobs) will follow. The goal of Pharo is to make that possible.
