I like to look at Squeak and Pharo as two communities that give people a choice. A brief explanation for those who haven't been around for that long: a couple of years ago there were certain differences in vision and opinion which resulted in a number of Squeakers to start their own Smalltalk Implementation.
Levente Uzonyi wrote: > > Let me respond to only those parts that weren't answered already: > I don't like the idea what some Pharo users and developers (yes, that's > including you too) are suggesting about Squeak. A few examples: > - Squeak has no vision > - Squeak should be a multimedia platform > - the purpose of Squeak is to support EToys > Pharo only says it will "not" support eToys, this does not mean it is Squeak's purpose is to support eToys, it only means Pharo will not. Levente Uzonyi-2 wrote: > > - Squeak should only be used for educational purposes > - Squeak is a mess (while Pharo is clean) > - Squeak is dead > etc. > > IMHO Squeak is and should be "a modern, open source, full-featured > implementation of the powerful Smalltalk programming language and > environment". This implies that it should be good for everything what > Pharo is good for. Since I use it for software developement and I'm making > a living with it - just like many other people in the past (including some > of you) and present - it should be developer friendly too. > > Why "I got stuck in Squeak"? That's a long story, so let me tell you what > I like better in Squeak than Pharo instead: > - Squeak's update mechanism is a lot more stable. If you update your image > you have ~99% chance that it will work with your already loaded packages. > I can always use the bleeding edge version, because it's like a beta or > rc. We have some deployed images which were updated from 3.10.2 to the > current 4.2 (with Seaside and lot of other packages). > - When it's possible to do something in a backwards compatible way, then > it's usually done that way. > - The contribution process is simpler. > - The code changes appear on the mailing list. > - Colorful windows make it easy to find the one you're looking for. Most > windows are grey in Pharo even if you use a "Squeak theme". > - The UI feels faster. > - I use the toolbar with it's search tool all the time. The taskbar in > Pharo doesn't seem to be useful, but that's probably because I used to > find windows by colors. > > The list is not complete, but I guess the most important ones are here > from a user's POV. > Absolutely, today there are those who prefer Squeak and the Squeak way and that is perfectly fine. On the other hand there are others who prefer Pharo and the Pharo way and thats fine too. Both Smalltalk Implementations are (amongs others) freely available to choose from for anyone interested in Smalltalk. Choice is and always has been a good thing. Looking at the size of both communities it clearly shows that there was justification to start the Pharo Smalltalk Implementation as well as continue Squeak Smalltalk. So every time there is a "which Smalltalk" question, everyone should try out the different Smalltalk Implementations (http://www.world.st/implementations) and decide which is best for its purpose because any new Smalltalker is good for the Smalltalk community irrespective of Smalltalk Implementation. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Why-Smalltalk-Which-Smalltalk-tp3103039p3164282.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
