2014-04-30 15:07 GMT-03:00 Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]>: > 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.
That's certainly an interpretation. I didn't mean it wants to REMOVE compatibility, but I did mean it doesn't wan't backward compatibility with Smalltalk per se. Sometimes it isn't compatible with previous versions of itself! I remember having read exactly that: "we don't want backward compatibility". > 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. This is exactly what I meant. > 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. As a disclaimer I'm a strong defender of not hiding the "Smalltalk" heritage in Pharo. However there is no need to name something "Pharo Smalltalk" to have a connection with its past, but also no need to avoid any mention of the word Smalltalk in the new home page. At least from the SEO point of view. :) Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo
