This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Agile Buzz by James Robertson. Original Post: Generalized collection access and Smalltalk evolution Feed Title: Richard Demers Blog Feed URL: http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/rssBlog/rademers-rss.xml Feed Description: Richard Demers on Smalltalk Latest Agile Buzz Posts Latest Agile Buzz Posts by James Robertson Latest Posts From Richard Demers Blog

There has been an interesting discussion in the vwnc mailing list about generalized collection access, but it begs the question I keep asking but never get an answer to; namely, what is the process by which Smalltalk can evolve? In this case, it would be evolution of the core class libraries, but the larger question includes the syntax and semantics of the entire language.

Sure, people can always extend whatever classes they want (one of the beauties of Smalltalk), but what's the process for getting changes evaluated in a systematic way and either rejected or incorporated in the "official" language? Or are we stuck forever with the Blue-book definition of Smalltalk?

Of course, there have been some changes over the last 25 years, but they've been completely at the (dare I say) whim of individual vendors. There seems to be little (if any) discussion of language issues among the increasing number of Smalltalk vendors. Is this the best this community can do?

I asked these question at the last Smalltalk Solutions, at a panel discussion on the future of the language, suggesting that maybe the Smalltalk Industry Council had a role to play. The response I got was that STIC was strictly a volunteer effort by already overworked people. OK, but that doesn't answer the question: should there be an "official" process by which Smalltalk can evolve?