We should not forget the "Java is dead" craze over a decade ago. It was the time where dynamic language like python and ruby were gaining a lot of traction but here we are a decade later and Java is alive and kicking.
I seriously doubt that there are a lot of people out there that take "Smalltalk dead" seriously when the internet is littered with "C is Dead" , "Javascript is Dead" , "Lisp is Dead" etc etc Its just a meaningless word that people love to use in a desperate attempt to get more hits and appear in Google results. Its more like a joke. I completely agree with you that "Smalltalk inspired" is reinforcing "Sorry for dead Smalltalk , we will try to follow its legacy, RIP Smalltalk" , at least this is how I see it. I may be wrong. The question I want to raise is how many coders out there are even aware what Smalltalk really is ? I was not aware of Smalltalk 2 years ago. Thats the sad truth. Another mistake is that people tend to over idealising Smalltalk and it appears as if Smalltalk used to be popular, but I have found no evidence that Smalltalk was ever popular. Again I may be wrong but this is also maybe a motivation to regard Smalltalk dead. On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:38 PM, vfclists . <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 30 April 2014 19:33, Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > The problem here is that if you downplay the Smalltalk foundations of > Pharo then you only reinforce the impression that Smalltalk is outdated > when it is revealed that Pharo is a Smalltalk. What matters more is whether > Pharo is a "Smalltalk done right", or Smalltalk for the New web 3.0 era, > where none of the popular languages offer a live coding environment. > > An open source Smalltalk should really target Python in the areas where > Python is used as a scripting front end to systems written in higher > performance languages, ie stuff like Blender, Unity, Gephi etc. Power users > who need live interactive environments should be the main target of a tool > like Pharo. That also fits with early Smalltalk designers principles which > were focused on helping end users model their stuff, children to a large > extent. > > For software developers something like Smalltalk/X would probably be a > better bet if the licensing could draw more developers to it, or one of the > other Java based Smalltalk if they were finished. They need better > interoperability and the ability to drop down to C or some other low level > language when they need it. Software developers are not thinking about what > they can do with it now, they are thinking of what they will not be able to > do with it 18 months down the line. > > > -- > Frank Church > > ======================= > http://devblog.brahmancreations.com >
