In the past few weeks, there’s been a major uptick in discussion about Web 2.0 / Enterprise convergence. Andrew McAfee has a new article on what he calls Enterprise 2.0. Dion’s got an entire blog on the subject, though he thinks it should be called Enterprise Web 2.0. Nicholas Carr is skeptical. Seems to me all this discussion about what might happen in this space is pretty silly since it’s happened already.

Unfortunately, Andrew’s Enterprise 2.0 isn’t freely available (you can buy a copy of the PDF for $6.50), but it primarily focuses on the growing frustration with email and the rise of collaborative Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and wikis inside the enterprise. No big shock here – for collaboration, blogs and wikis are to email what word processors are to typewriters. Andrew also introduces a model he calls SLATES for describing the aspects of these technologies: Search, Links, Authorship, Tags, Extensions and Signals. So far, all good stuff.

The problem with the article is that he talks about these technologies in the future tense. For example, he writes: “As technologists build Enterprise 2.0 technologies that incorporate the SLATES components” which implies that these are coming down the pipe rather than here right now. Not only here right now, but available for going on three years. I’m talking about SharePoint 2003. 2003 as in “a year before Tim O’ Reilly coined the term Web 2.0“.

SharePoint (I’m talking primarily about the free feature pack for Windows Server 2003 though about the portal server as well) supports Search, Links, Authorship and Signals – four of the six components of Andrew’s Enterprise 2.0 stack. (And frankly, I’m not sure where Andrew is going w/ his Extensions aspect so four out of five is probably more accurate.) More importantly, it’s specifically designed to support what Dion called the Democratization of Content. As of December 2004, Microsoft’s internal IT department was supporting “more than 60,000 users, 250 group and division portals, 50,000 team sites, and manages more than 3 terabytes of information.” Personally, I use the coportate enterprise intranet portal, my division portal, a handful of team sites and my personal site on a pretty much daily basis. Only the enterprise and division portal are centrally managed. Given the explosion of SharePoint sites inside Microsoft, I’m obviously not alone.

Creating a new SharePoint team site inside Microsoft is totally self service and takes literally a few seconds. Once you have a site, you can configure it as you like, creating lists and setting permissions as you see fit. Again, it’s totally self service. Plus, it’s totally public unless you specifically lock it down (well, public inside the firewall at any rate). Of course, it could be easier and better, and that’s what next versions are for. SharePoint 2007 will have direct support for blogs, wikis and RSS. Check out the C9 video for more info.

Given the market momentum to date and the impending release of a new version, I find it very surprising to find Dion, Andrew and Nicholas discussing the potential ramifications of these technologies without even mentioning SharePoint. If these guys want to see the Enterprise 2.0 technology in action, all they need to do install SharePoint.

Erik Meijer just posted details about Lang .NET 2006 over on Lambda the Ultimate. Looks to be the next generation of the Complier Dev Lab I attended last month. The appear to have opened up the program significantly, and are asking for abstracts for both 30 minute talks as well as 10 minute “lightning” talks. If you’re interested in submitting, here’s the list of topics they are most interested in:

• Dynamic languages and scripting
• AJAX and ATLAS
• Domain specific languages
• Functional languages
• Object-oriented and aspect-oriented programming
• Web-services and mobile code
• Libraries
• Language-Integrated Query (LINQ)
• Compiler frameworks
• Garbage collection
• JIT compilation
• Visual Programming
• Success and failure stories
• Non-standard language features and implementation techniques
• Tools and IDE support

My brother sent me this great compliation video of Alexander Ovechkin’s first year in the NHL. In the words of Barry Melrose, the Calder Trophy has been a one man race for some time now. Congrats to Alex on being only the second rookie to score 50 goals and 100 points his first season.

Even if you don’t care a lick about Ruby, you should read Why’s (Poignant) Guide to Ruby. It is by far the most facinating (and freaky) technical book I’ve ever read.

I spent a couple of hours chatting with Neal Ford from ThoughtWorks yesterday. Ted Neward had virtually introduced us a few months ago and he was in town for MTS, so he arranged a meeting. I had asked Ted to introduce me to some dynamic language folks for some research and public debate purposes, and Neal was one of the people he hooked me up with. Unfortunately, this was right before I changed roles and got real busy. Of course, dynamic languages in general and Ruby in particular plays a large role in Edge Architecture, so I’m thankful Neal took the time to drop me a line and meet with me.

Above all else, talking to Neal made me realize that I just don’t know enough about dynamic languages, which limits my ability to discuss them. To date, I’ve flirted with them, but haven’t made a real commitment. For example, I’ve played around with Instant Rails, but hadn’t actually installed Ruby yet. It was time to re-image my dev partition anyway, so I’m going to try using Ruby exclusively for a while.

Here’s a brain dump of some of what we talked about. Not sure what it all means yet, so I’ll try and refrain from making commentary.

• Hungarian notation for interfaces (i.e. ISomething) is a big code smell. This has nothing really to do with Ruby or dynamic languages, but it’s an important point that I wanted to include here. Neal’s point is that the interface defines the semantics of the type and the concrete class is an “implementation detail”. In other words, contract-first isn’t just for web services. Apparently, ThoughtWorks doesn’t use ADO.NET directly primarily because the interfaces “aren’t pervasive enough” and are difficult to mock out. Also, they’re using Rhino Mocks which I wasn’t previously aware of.
• For all the debate about static vs. dynamic languages, it seems like the value Ruby brings is in meta-programming rather than dynamic typing. Certainly, that’s one of the big differentiators for Ruby vs. other dynamic languages like Python. While Rails has pushed the popularity of Ruby thru the roof recently, Neal seems much more enamored with Ruby than Rails.
• There is an even bigger gulf between dynamic and static typing proponents than I had thought. I brought up Singularity, which uses static typing exclusively to deliver a provably dependable system. Neal disagreed with that approach, pointing out that “tests are the best way of encoding the specification of the system” rather than compile time checking. Given my lack of expertise in this space, I’m withholding comment (for now) but I’m guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle.
• However, while the dynamic vs. static typing gulf is big, meta-programming is potentially the bridge. I don’t believe meta-programming is exclusive to dynamic languages. Certainly, some of the new features in the “Orcas” versions of C# and VB bring more expressiveness to the languages while still remaining type safe.
• All this meta-programming leads to domain specific languages. Ruby has strong support what Martin Fowler called “internal DSLs”, but Neal thought over time the focus would shift to external DSLs as they are more expressive and not constrained by the semantics of an existing language. Obviously, we’re pretty heavily focused on DSLs. However, Neal did think our focus on graphical DSLs is misplaced. He called them a “hangover” from CASE/UML tools. He rightfully pointed out that “business analysis speak English”.

All in all, it was time well spent. Neal, I hope we can pick up the conversation again sometime.