I think for people coming outside , it wont matter whether Pharo is Smalltalk or Smalltalk-inspired. Chances are that they wont care about the semantics at all, just "what pharo can do for me now". And its great you all focus on the practical side and not the philosophical side.
Also if you think about it even though you may disagree what you should name Pharo as, as soon as you start describing Pharo in detail you will be saying the exact same things. I think the secret is not to try to make people understand what Pharo is in a few words. Just describing what live coding means for Pharo is a rather long talk. Unfortunately thats the downside when you creating a quite different product from what already exists out there, your users will take some time to realyl appreciate what the fuzz is all about. When I started with python it was BOOM "a dynamic language that tries to keep things simple and small" , thats what python is all about. Took me literally a couple of days to realise what I had in front me. With Squeak and Pharo it took several tries, it took me a couple of days to realise the importance of blocks and why loops and ifs had to to use this strange thing. I once laughed at the video when he pointed that pressing enter on workspace does not run the code. That was a "WTF" moment for me when I first tried workspace in Squeak. Many other strange things , instance variables by default private , Transcript separate from Workspace, no source files etc etc. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Eliot, >> >> I know we went through it, and we still disagree :). I have provided >> detailed arguments and I have seen no others that did refute mine. >> > > OK, I'll bite :-). Point me to the arguments and I'll have a go at > refutation. But my statement that Pharo is a Smalltalk boils own to the > facts that Smalltalk has always evolved (Multiple inheritance was a > discarded experiment that is in Smalltalk-80 for example, Tweak contains a > sort-of slot idea, as another) and that Pharo's evolutions are no different > to other evolutions that have enriched Smalltalk but not redefined it, and > that one way to tell is to see if the VM or instruction set needs to be > radically different to implement the system efficiently. So there's > nothing un-Smalltalk about traits, or slots or a modular compiler. > > >> I am certainly open to talking about it. I have no intention of lying or >> hiding. I am rather proud to be part of this community and to do my bit of >> contributing. >> > > Us both. > > >> But, please understand that my main concern is getting Pharo adopted >> which is what other Smalltalk rooted systems did not really manage until >> now. There are many ways to say the same thing. Some people will resonate >> with some messages, and some others will pick holes in them. I will focus >> on increasing the first set of people while preserving the semantics I >> believe in. >> > > Quite. Agreed. > > >> >> Doru >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Eliot Miranda >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and >>>> language that is Smalltalk-inspired. >>>> >>> >>> We went through this a few months ago. Pharo isn't inspired by >>> Smalltalk; it /is/ a Smalltalk. Trying to be mealy-mouthed about it and >>> claiming inspiration, rather than proudly declaring its a Smalltalk is IMO >>> as bad as apologizing for it being dead. >>> >>> >>>> We do not need to apologize because Pharo was never dead :). >>>> >>> >>> We don't need to avoid the S word either... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Doru >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 28.04.2014 um 18:58 schrieb kilon alios <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> very cool presentation. Definitely you need to add this to the new >>>>> website. >>>>> >>>>> Question : Why in every presentation we have to apologise why >>>>> smalltalk is dead / extinct ? >>>>> >>>>> As a newcomer to Smalltalk I find it quite annoying. Its not as if I >>>>> came to Smalltalk without knowing that is not popular. The vast majority >>>>> of >>>>> languages out there are so more unpopular than Smalltalk, yet they don't >>>>> have this "sorry that I am dead" mentality to them. >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Well said. >>>>> >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> … more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: >>>>>> >>>>>> MountainWest RubyConf 2014 >>>>>> >>>>>> Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalk” >>>>>> >>>>>> Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. It >>>>>> seems like it should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar >>>>>> Object-Oriented >>>>>> structures, it even has blocks. But everything is so slightly different, >>>>>> from the programming environment, to the 1-based arrays, to the simple >>>>>> syntax. Using Smalltalk will make you look at familiar constructs with >>>>>> new >>>>>> eyes. We’ll show you how to get started on Smalltalk, and walk through >>>>>> some >>>>>> sample code. Live coding may be involved. You’ll never look at objects >>>>>> the >>>>>> same way again. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-smalltalk >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>> >>>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> best, >>> Eliot >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > > > -- > best, > Eliot >
