DN633241136

Subject: The Future of Tcl (and all of us) - (was Re: ANNOUNCE: Tcl/Tk 8.4a1 release) - DN [1]

"Matt Newman" <matt@sensus.org> - 09 Jun 2000 - comp.lang.tcl

 I don't post very often - but as a long time user of Tcl, since 92 (I think)
 and also as the person that is suposed to be co-charing the 2001 Tcl
 Conference (track) I would like to go on record with a few observations.

 Jeffrey Hobbs wrote in message <8hoqf9$vg$1@lorax.scriptics.com>...
 >What about that answer isn't serious?  The fact that you are too lazy
 >to actually provide the core team support in getting what you feel
 >to be a critical feature into the core, or that you would rather
 >repeatedly post lots of negative comments bashing an already
 >overburdened core team (which you noted yourself in another post)?
 >--
 >    Jeffrey Hobbs

 Aside from the merits of the subject that is being discussed - and without
 endorsing or condemning Jeff, George or anyone else that has commented so
 far - these postings are a clear indication the SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT.

 I suspect we can all agree that that is the case - though we may all have
 different views on WHY this is the case - but recognizing that THERE IS A
 PROBLEM has to be the first step.

 Tcl has grown successful for various reasons but the ones I want to
 highlight are (in no specific order):

 1) innovation in the core of Tk
 2) innovation in the reach of Tcl via key extensions such as Expect, TclX,
 [Incr T*], tcl-dp, tclodbc etc.
 3) investment by Sun Microsystems in enabling us to have both a
 cross-platform Tcl and a byte-compiler.
 4) day-and-night investment of hundreds of firms and many many people to
 make Tcl appropriate and fit-for-purpose in commercial situations.
 5) advocacy of "shining lights" in our community - everyone that has written
 a book about Tcl/Tk - and people like Michael McLennan who have established
 multi-national training ventures - set up a Tcl consortium etc etc.

 Everyone involved deserves recognition for their efforts - Tcl would not
 have achieved its success without *all* of these things..

 HOWEVER.... One of the largest "tensions" in the Tcl community for AT LEAST
 7 years has been between extension writers that produce high quality work
 that extends the reach of Tcl - ultimately making it more successful - and
 the "owners' of the core code base. This has been a VERY rocky road.... for
 all sorts of reasons.

 If Tcl is going to continue to grow then it is clear - especially from the
 snippet that I quoted above - that ATTITUDES MUST CHANGE. Not just Jeff's or
 George's or Matt's or whatever - but everyone who has any serious investment
 or involvement in Tcl.

 The main issues that I see that can be addressed if there is a willingness
 on the part of all parties to do so are :

 1) Who owns Tcl? I asked John this question at the Tcl2K - he answered that
 he wasn't sure if Tcl was a "product" provided in a community friendly way -
 or a community project supported by what was at that time Scriptics. I
 suspect that many (including John) might - if they honestly dug deep inside
 themselves - recognize that at least the external perception has been closer
 to "product" than to "project". This has been the case for a very very long
 time.....

 2) The US and THEM perception/reality of the "core team" - right now
 Scriptics has 1 1/2 engineers working on Tcl - representing a significant
 bottleneck to progress DESPITE the best intentions of the people involved.
 If you put together the serious users and maintainers of patched Tcl cores
 (I have one - who doesn't?) the number of highly skilled and highly
 qualified people would number  greater than 15 - a ten fold increase.
     - not intending to detract from Jeff or Eric's experience - but there
 are many people out here that have very deep experience of Tcl,
 cross-platform issues, product management etc etc - this expertise comes
 with ONLY A VERY SIMPLE PRICE TAG - COOPERATION.

 3) The COMMUNITY - we all share a responsibility to pool our ideas - to
 COOPERATE with each other - and when necessary to engage in CONTRUCTIVE
 debate - with respect for each others position and hopefully recognizing
 that it is in our BEST INTERESTS to do this....

 4) Poor PROCESS for structuring the evolution of Tcl, or its extensions.

 So the question is really - are we capable of changing our collectively
 dysfunctional patterns into a functional and constructive community - with a
 common VISION and GOALS - can we even agree on what that VISION is - and if
 we can then WHY ARE WE ARGUING SO MUCH?

 I have a vision for Tcl - as does Michael, George, Paul, Jean-Claude and
 many many others - it is the same? Are the differences important? I suspect
 that if we really sit down and consider what matters to each of us (not the
 technical details but the overall picture) then we might be surprised at the
 degree of commonality.... And hell - if we find that we can't agree then
 maybe we should part company and go our respective ways instead of spending
 our lives having stupid arguments.....

 One thing is very clear to me - unless we can find a common VISION -
 eliminate this "US and THEM" attitude (from all sides) and come together as
 one cohesive force - not as Scriptics or Ajuba - but as a COMMUNITY of
 TCL'ERS - and manage the future of Tcl carefully and progressively then we
 WILL FADE AWAY... Hey - it might not happen today or tomorrow - but IT WILL
 HAPPEN.

 So I say the time has come for us to DISCUSS the VISION - not the details. I
 do believe that there is a bright (possible) future  for Tcl - I have
 personally invested about EIGHT years of my professional career trying to
 ensure this - and there are certainly others that have done much more than
 I - is this investment - probably measured in many HUNDREDS of MAN-YEARS -
 if not THOUSANDS - to go to waste? I certainly hope not.

 Traditionally, or at least when I was a little younger, I have opposed
 STRUCTURE - seeing it as restrictive and full of inertia - but I have come
 to realize that NOTHING in the ENTIRE period of HUMAN HISTORY of any
 magnitude has ever really been achieved without some kind of structure - is
 it time for us to tread this path? Clearly the current status quo is fragile
 at best and not working at worst.

 Matt Newman, Managing Director, Sensus Consulting Ltd.