> On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:58, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we *really* need a smalltalk-talk mailing list…
+1024 These discussions have nothing to do with developing or using Pharo. >> On 16 Jan 2015, at 05:44, kilon alios <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> "I would like to remind people that the aim of the Pharo project is more >> ambitious than the Smalltalk one" >> >> I would like to hear this grand plan of Pharo, where is it ? Where is the >> official roadmap ? What are the goals that the core development team agree >> on ? Why are such a secret and I have never seen them discussed here or >> anywhere on the internet. >> >> I would not call Pharo odd, Pharo is diffirent but not that diffirent. It >> offers me a way to code that I prefer over python , but I would not call my >> experience coding with pharo radically different compared to python coding. >> Smalltalk used to be the Purple Cow no doubt when it first came out , so >> many new concepts and ideas that were far apart from anything remotely >> similar. But nowdays the smalltalk paradigm has been embraced in several >> fronts , languages and IDEs are moving closer and closer. >> >> It took python 24 years to get as popular as it is nowdays, the most popular >> languages have a similar lifespan if not more in some cases. Its a really >> long process and its full of compromises and ugly truths. >> >> I also dont like the fact that Pharo calls itself "Smalltalk inspired" its >> an insult to people who put an effort into Smalltalk by spending hours >> making code. You cannot be "Smalltalk inspired" by forking code , your at >> best "Smalltalk based" and that makes you Smalltalk. Ruby can call itself >> "Smalltalk inspired" , Pharo cannot. This shows to me a very flawed >> mentality inside the heads of those Pharoers that believe this, its shows me >> fear , its shows me embarrassment, it shows me weakness. >> >> I would prefer it if Pharo was advertising itself as a modern Smalltalk >> implementation as a project that lives true to the Smalltalk philosophy and >> moves forward. Instead here we are calling Smalltalk "less ambitious" , why >> ? Innovativing more than any other language have done so , is not >> ambitious enough for you ? >> >> I do believe in Pharo If I did not I would not contribute but I would prefer >> it without all the hype. Innovate all you want , code whatever makes you >> happy, live your dream but also respect the dreams of others, especially >> when you base your success on their success. And yes I will dare say it , >> Smalltalk has been extremely succesful in many fronts , far more than Pharo >> currently is. >> >> PS: Just a clarification because people love to put words on other people >> mouths, I never said that languages like Clojure and Scheme has been >> miserable failures generally, but based on the hype of how popular they will >> become. Both Clojure and Sceme are great language with continuously >> expanding communities . I was merely wanted to point out how hype does not >> help and there was tons of hype when Java allowed for the creation of those >> languages. Jython for example is one of the oldest Java languages (2001), >> and there was tons of hype when the project started that Jython could become >> at worst an equal to Cpython on terms of popularity and even more popular >> than Java at best. Sun even funded the development of Jython back in 2008. >> >> I admire what the creator of Redline done as I admire the effort that has >> been invested on both Pharo and Squeak. Its really hard to make a >> competitive product in a world so complex and so demanding as the one we >> live now. I do believe in Pharo and I hope the best for it but even Pharo >> never makes it to the top 20 most popular languages even in 30 years I wont >> lose my sleep over it. I love Pharo for what it is, and not what it may >> become. >> >> >
