I agree whole heartedly. Ditch “agile” a tool/language can’t be agile anyway… agile is a characteristic of a team, their process, and their dynamic. And it’s generally meaningless now.
Also, Pharo IS a Smalltalk. That’s the biggest thing that makes it interesting. Saying Pharo isn’t Smalltalk is like saying Clojure isn’t Lisp. In Clojure’s case, it’s further from classic Lisp than Pharo is from Smalltalk-80. Dave On May 15, 2014, at 1:02 PM, kmo <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at the new pharo website (it’s great, by the way), I found I was more > upset than I thought I would be by the total absence of the s-word. > > Perhaps lots of people think smalltalk is a dead language but that’s not the > only view of smalltalk that people have out there. > > I came to pharo looking for a new, better way of developing applications. I > knew from reading about the history of computing that smalltalk was the > purest object oriented language. I knew that it had pioneered many advanced > ideas in program development. I knew that it was so far ahead of its time > that other languages were still hobbling along behind it trying to catch up. > I knew that java and C# were constantly trying to be more smalltalk-like. So > I looked for a smalltalk – ideally an open source smalltalk that I could use > on Linux. And so I came to pharo. If someone had told me that pharo was not > smalltalk, I would not have been interested, I would have though pharo was > just a niche product (like Rebol, say) - something that might simply fade > away with no history behind it. And I’m sure there are other people like me > out there who also have heard of the smalltalk mystique. This heritage is > something to be proud of. > > So why hide what pharo is? > > It’s not smalltalk’s reputation as /dead/ that I think is likely to put > people off. It’s more smalltalks’s reputation as an academic’s language, > used to investigate abstruse computer science problems, but unsuitable for > mundane day-to-day development. The sort of language that cannot produce a > stand-alone executable (a myth - but pharo could do with a deployment wizard > of some kind). The sort of language that can produce incredible data > visualisations (Roassal) but is unable to put up a decent data entry screen > (Spec). (Sorry, that's unfair but I could not resist it! ) > > Rather than hide the smalltalk origins of pharo, I think they should be > shouted from the rooftops. I would add something like this to the web page. > > */Pharo is an alive-and-kicking, developer-focused, version of smalltalk – > the most beautiful idea in the history of computing./* > > Just my two cents. > > By the way, I really don't like the idea of using /agile /as a description > of pharo. Agile means almost nothing now - it's just a management buzzword > for nothing in particular. > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4759204.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
