Let me put forward my personal opinion for what is worth. I am new to Smalltalk and I am new to Pharo , slowly learning a tiny bit every single day . I am no pro developer. Just a guy that uses Pharo as a way to exercise my brain cells. It has become by far my favorite tool.
For me Pharo is Smalltalk, the reason being that I see Smalltalk as I see Lisp. A programming language to create a programming languages. On the other hand Smalltalk is also a hackable software environment. The way I see it nothing stops Smalltalk from evolving to something like Pharo, as a matter of fact thats the whole goal of Smalltalk in the first place, to evolve , change, improve , imposing no limitation to the users. This is why we have a live environment, this is why OOP is a essential part , this is why ease of use is so central in Smalltalk. The fact that Pharo brakes off from traditional concepts and ideas of Smalltalk is irrelevant. Pharo is not the first to do this. I am coming from cpython, when cpython 3 appeared it had broken compatibility in many ways with python 2 , it was essentially a new python, yet it was still python. I think ruby has gone a similar phase too. As a matter of fact burning down bridges is part of the process of improvement. Its not invention, its evolution. On the other hand its semantics, just words, and words are useless if you dont put detailed meanings. Detailed meanings are paragraphs, chapters and in some cases entire books. Because the world we live in is far from simple. On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:12 PM, p...@highoctane.be <p...@highoctane.be>wrote: > Pharo := Smalltalk ++ > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 04/28/2014 11:12 AM, Marcus Denker 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 >>> >> >> In this thread and many others there is this debate as to whether Pharo >> is a Smalltalk or is Smalltalk Inspired. >> >> I find the Smalltalk Inspired arguments to be unpersuasive. To be >> Smalltalk Inspired is to say that you are not a Smalltalk. It is to say >> that Pharo is not Smalltalk but inspired by it. >> >> I find that reasoning patently false. >> >> First of all everything in Pharo begins from a Smalltalk image. It comes >> from Squeak Smalltalk which comes from Apple Smalltalk. etc. >> >> Pharo has an isA relationship with Smalltalk, not an isInspiredBy >> relationship. It may change and add features, but as has been stated >> before, Smalltalk isn't a static idea or artifact. It has always been a >> dynamic live environment in which to change itself into something it >> believed to be better. By removing features and by growing them. >> >> Smalltalk (an instance of SmalltalkImage), SmalltalkImage, >> SmalltalkImageTest, SmalltalkEditingState are all part of the Pharo >> Smalltalk image. >> >> The Pharo image is a Smalltalk image. It says so inside the image itself. >> >> Where are we hosting are source code? Would that be SmalltalkHub? >> Lets see something. >> http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo >> >> Okay, Pharo might be doing things that would break compatibility with >> other Smalltalks. And that causes some people pain and grief. However that >> does not make Pharo not a Smalltalk. Was Smalltalk 76 constrained by >> backward compatibility with Smalltalk 72? Or Smalltalk 80 with either >> Smalltalk 76 or 72? No! >> >> Is it a requirement of Pharo to be constrained by other Smalltalk >> implementations in order to still be a Smalltalk. No! >> >> And then there is the argument of the outside worlds perception of >> Smalltalk. Since when does the perception of the outside world change >> whether or not Pharo is a Smalltalk? If the outside world changed their >> mind and decided Smalltalk is wonderful, does Pharo then all of the sudden >> become a Smalltalk? Ugh! >> >> We are who we are. Our roots are our roots. Pharo should be happy and >> proud to be a Smalltalk. A Smalltalk that is continuing the heritage of >> innovation. A Smalltalk that is continuing the heritage of inventing the >> future. >> >> We have decided to be marketing driven. Marketing is important. But >> marketing should determine who we are. And we should engage in disingenuous >> marketing practice trying to hide our roots or who we are. >> >> Why do we things distancing ourselves from Smalltalk advantages us? Just >> because there are lots of uneducated people who have the wrong idea about >> Smalltalk. Clojure embraced its Lisp heritage and is thriving. Lisp has >> every bit as much baggage. >> >> This talk which inspired this thread called Pharo as Smalltalk. He said, >> Pharo Smalltalk throughout the presentation. So in the mind of the >> presenter and now in the mind of the audience at the conference and of the >> video, Pharo is a Smalltalk. So now are we to go about re-educating all >> these people that Pharo is not a Smalltalk but is rather Smalltalk Inspired? >> >> We don't require the outside world's permission. We don't need their >> approval. We would like to have a reasonable and sufficient number of them >> to catch the Pharo Smalltalk vision and become a part of the family. Do we >> really desire everybody. No. Do we desire those people who are so closed >> minded that the mention of Smalltalk closes their mind because of their >> ignorance. I don't think so. >> >> Smalltalk is different. Pharo is Smalltalk and is different. There will >> be those who don't like it because of the baggage they bring, not the >> baggage we bring. And that is okay. All of us think different. People need >> to embrace what empowers them and quit complaining about what empowers >> somebody else. We need to embrace empowering people who understand >> Smalltalk not the people who don't get it for whatever reason. Let those >> people go and be empowered somewhere else. We and they will both be better >> off. >> >> Feel free to shred and destroy my arguments. I am proud to use Smalltalk. >> And currently Pharo is the Smalltalk I am choosing to use. Currently I am >> studying C. A C library is required for my project and in order to use >> Pharo and use this library, I need sufficient C skills. >> >> My opinion unapologetically. >> >> And if the powers that be who are in charge of Pharo decide that >> Smalltalk (in name) is baggage and Pharo is not Smalltalk. And that >> marketing Pharo as Smalltalk is bad. Then please be honest and change all >> references in the image of Smalltalk to Pharo. Also change SmalltalkHub to >> PharoHub or SmalltalkInspiredHub. >> >> If if not, be sincere and embrace Pharo Smalltalk. >> >> Long live Smalltalk. >> >> Jimmie >> >> >
