On 05/13/2014 10:45 AM, Craig Latta wrote:
Hoi!Eliot wrote: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 don't need to avoid the S word...Sean later wrote:...it's a question of who you're marketing to. Since we're marketing to non-Smalltalkers (quite wise since 16% market penetration is the tipping point, and we're not there yet), clearly "Pharo is Smalltalk- inspired" is the thing to say. It's not any more or less true than the latter, just more useful in its context.And of course, with apologies to Alan, some of us think the name "Smalltalk" was a poor choice from day one (in 1971). Surely there are names which are suitably "innocuous"[1] but also convey some of the magic in "providing computer support for the creative spirit in everyone"[2]. "Smalltalk" is a vague and anemic name. From that weak starting point, the other baggage is even heavier (perhaps it's helpful to think of a balloon here? :). I would use a new name and not mention "Smalltalk" at all unless asked about it. At that point, I would proudly recount accomplishments. Whenever someone just blurts out that Smalltalk is dead, I always correct them, and it's not difficult. "Smalltalk-inspired" is a non-starter, because it implies (in all contexts) that there isn't a direct line of descent (there clearly is). I agree that it sounds mealy-mouthed, disingenuous. "Smalltalk-derived" would be the honest phrasing, and also sounds bad. Yeesh, if you have a problem with the "Smalltalk" name, don't be the first to mention it. :) Let's put more energy into a concise and intriguing description. I think the primary concepts are programming, dynamism and messaging. The word "livecoding" seems to resonate these days. If we're going to repeat a word twenty times, I would choose that one. :) It has a nice ring that draws people in. When they ask what livecoding is, you can describe dynamism, and then describe how the coding is structured (messaging, objects, etc.). thanks, -C [1] http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html [2] http://tinyurl.com/25s52qd (archive.org, Ingalls) -- Craig Latta www.netjam.org +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok) + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
I would like to repent of my position that Pharo is Smalltalk vs. Pharo is Pharo.
I have been watching videos on Self. I have also given my understanding some more thought.
I do strongly dislike and argue against the Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. To me it is not accurate. As Craig said, Pharo is Smalltalk derived. It still runs Smalltalk code without conversion. It is still born from a Smalltalk. Pharo may be Self inspired or ??? inspired. But it is from Smalltalk therefore Smalltalk derived.
Here is why I think it is okay to say Pharo is Pharo. And when Smalltalk is mentioned, explain that Pharo is Smalltalk derived. Pharo began as a Smalltalk with a vision to expand beyond Smalltalk-80 and add features inspired by other modern programming languages.
I still believe that none of this makes Pharo not a Smalltalk. But here is why I in my current understanding would change to Pharo is Pharo. Smalltalk is a language, name, environment and implementation created by a certain group of people. Pharo is not that group of people. Pharo began with an artifact from those people. So the question could be presented, does Pharo have the right to conscript the name Smalltalk and extend its vision, implementation and meaning. Conservatively, I would say it is fairer to Pharo and to Smalltalk to let Pharo be Pharo and have liberty in its vision, implementation, definitions and marketing decisions.
Just a few more thoughts to toss into the fray. Jimmie
