In the Smalltalk heritage. Pharo comes from Smalltalk 80.
But we don't want to be stuck in 1980. We want Smalltalk 2014.
Smalltalk 80 was modern for 1980. They didn't want to be stuck in 1976. ...
And Smalltalk isn't unique to this. Is C11 not a C because it is not
K&R, or C89, C90 or C99?
Is Python 3.x not Python because it is not fully compatible with Python
2.x which is dominant?
Pharo wants to be a modern Smalltalk able to empower people in this era
to do things that we do in 2014. We need appropriate modularity in the
image. We need the image to be clean. We need to learn the lessons we as
Smalltalker's have learned in the last 24 years and apply them to Pharo
Smalltalk. And I believe that is much of what Pharo is attempting to do.
Noel in his talk said that Smalltalk doesn't play well with others. And
with Pharo it still isn't as easy as in other languages like Python,
Ruby, Lua, etc. But with NativeBoost we have a tool which enables us to
do much. And NativeBoost isn't finished. I believe when NativeBoost is
fully mature and the vm/image has sufficiently changed to enable us. We
will have one of the best plays with others well stories.
I know in the app I am writing, NativeBoost's current condition
struggled with my library. It often crashed. This library has to deal
with a C Thread. Which is why I am spending my current time studying C.
Whether or not the Smalltalk Inspired crowd likes it, the moment some
else declares that Pharo is a Smalltalk the Smalltalk Inspired marketing
is tanked. The cat is out of the bag.
The Reddit thread demonstrates this. People went to the new website.
They read the current marketing and were confused. What is this Pharo
thing. And in the thread it comes out that Pharo is a Smalltalk. Lets
make that clear up front. Then lets define what it means to be Pharo
Smalltalk.
Here is an unfortunate quote from that thread.
"""
emaringolo 1 point an hour ago
Pharo is aimed to do serious/business development, and it's been
reshaping itself since its conception (several years ago when it forked
from Squeak).
It doesn't want to have any backward or "historic" compatibility with
other Smalltalks.
You can see its changelogs and the roadmap for future versions to see
how it is different, and how it will be different.
"""
This makes it sound like Pharo wants remove compatibility simply for the
sake of not being a Smalltalk. As opposed to what I believe Esteban
meant. And yes I understand that English is not his native language, and
there are many for whom it is, who still use it poorly. What I believe
he meant, is that Pharo will not be constrained by backward
compatibility. If a change or feature that is of value to Pharo
Smalltalk. That feature will be done even if it means breaking backward
compatibility with other Smalltalk 80 based Smalltalks. We are moving
forward. But this does not invalidate Pharo being a Smalltalk. As has
been stated before, breaking changes happened in Smalltalk 76 and 80.
Smalltalk has a wonderful heritage. It is not without its issues.
However the good of Smalltalk is enormous. Take a look at this chart
http://exploringdata.github.io/vis/programming-languages-influence-network/
Smalltalk is a big influence in the history of programming. This is
something worth being a part of. Be proud of it.
Pharo needs to define what one vision of a modern Smalltalk is. Let us
educate people of what our vision for Pharo Smalltalk is. And guess what
folks its 2014. Before long it wont be. And before long the vision of
Pharo 2014 will no longer be any more modern than Smalltalk 80. But
neither Smalltalk 80 nor Pharo 3.0 constrain what it means to be
Smalltalk. Smalltalk inspires vision and inspires people to do things
which change the present and the future. Lets build on that heritage and
take it forward. What does a modern Smalltalk snapshot 2014 mean. Lets
educate and communicate. Others (non-Smalltalkers) don't get to define
what Smalltalk is. We do.
Let us learn from them what they think Smalltalk is. Where they are
wrong, educate them. Where they are right and we have an issue. Let's
learn a lesson and improve our Smalltalk.
Computer science/art is young. This is a journey. Lets make it a good one.
Jimmie
On 04/30/2014 11:12 AM, p...@highoctane.be wrote:
Pharo := Smalltalk ++
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com
<mailto: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
<http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#%21/%7EPharo>
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
