[ANSI-Smalltalk] What's in a name?

[Steve Wart]

I think "Smalltalk Standards Group" just sounds better.

It also makes more sense if instead of one monolithic standard we prefer
different standards documents for different parts of Smalltalk.

I'm not thinking of J2EE salad but it might make sense to break things down
into different components with different experts groups providing input into
the main process (e.g. VM, networking, OR mapping, etc.)

Steve

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu.org> wrote:

>
> >> I think Smalltalk Standard Project is much much more com pellling than
> >> Smalltalk Sandards Project.  Please, just *one* standard.  I want an
> >> accordion not a bunch of mouth organs in different keys...
> >
> > The singular will surely be fine. But I rather liked the plural...why?
> >
> > 1) I was imagining *multiple instances* of the class Smalltalk Standard
> > over the years... ST-80 ST-98 ST-2009 ST-2011 ST-2013.
> > ==> As per Bruce's vision for the future.
>
> That's multiple revisions of a single standard.
>
> > 2) Also I was seeing *multiple vehicles* of the Smalltalk Standard...
> > open standard in community discussion, published ANSI, or whatever other
> > organisation that will take some money to put its label on a document.
> > ==> Following the discussion/poll we just had.
>
> Right.  But that doesn't mean that there is going to be more than one
> standard.
>
> There are going to be multiple *processes*, that's for sure.  We could
> decide to name them, but they will remain under a single umbrella
> "Smalltalk Standard Project".  Even if the open process arose because of
> dissatisfaction with ANSI's mode of operation, it will still (and does
> in my draft) have explicit provision for incorporating its content into
> the ANSI standard.
>
> > BTW, I also have this image that Ralph had something like idea number 3)
> > in mind when he envisioned the Smalltalk Standard Test Suite and started
> > Camp Smalltalk. That idea appealed a lot to many people. It still
> > appeals to me (and I would not be too interested in a Standard does does
> > not include an automatic testing track/component, like the (ANSI) ST-98
> > standard, which is simply a PDF).
>
> While I agree with that, I will point out that this kind of conformance
> library is usually (for other ANSI standards at least) provided by
> separate vendors.  That's probably why the ANSI ST-98 standard was
> simply a PDF.
>
> That said, my draft also specifies that test suites should be created
> for new proposed Smalltalk features.  (BTW please, I welcome comments on
> that draft!)
>
> Paolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> ANSI-Smalltalk mailing list
> ANSI-Smalltalk at lists.openskills.org
> http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.openskills.org/pipermail/ansi-smalltalk/attachments/20080222/cf4dcec0/attachment.htm