We are so over this discussion. You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. We don’t, and that’s ok too. Is about what we want to do. For any other argument, please take into account this thought from Alan Kay: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMJoLicXsAA7dej?format=jpg&name=small
The real point is: This is a list for Pharo users, about Pharo usage. This is not comp.lang.smalltalk. This is not /r/smalltalk So, while off-topic is allowed at a certain point (and while talking about other dialects sometimes is not off-topic), please take that into account when you smalltalk about smalltalk. Cheers, Esteban > On 5 Feb 2020, at 16:36, TedVanGaalen <ted...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Pharo IS Smalltalk, whether you like it or not. > my 2 cents: > > This thread is incredibly ridiculous IMHO. > Is this becoming something like a religious argument, > like church schisms in medieval times? > > Pharo IS Smalltalk and that is good: > That means everyone that is familiar with > Smalltalk can use Pharo without any serious difficulties. > > For example, for learning, one can still use nearly everything > from an "old" book like "Smalltalk By Example" by Alex Sharp > from 1997 without any modifications whatsoever. > It all works. > > I've ported .st files between different Smalltalk systems > and it nearly always works without any modifications! > > (i don't use traits btw, because this is not Smalltalk > as I know it and creates nasty inter-object dependencies, > kind of "goto to attempt to multiple inheritance", but that's me :o) > > Apart from some minor deviations, Pharo conforms to > nearly all Smalltalk rules, object hierarchy and syntax. > > The fundamental system classes throughout all Smalltalk implementations > are virtually the same everywhere. Thank the gods for that. > COMPATIBILITY. <- read this again if you like. > > > Pharo excels in that the Pharo people did a lot of work in making > the Pharo environment productive and a real pleasure to work with! > but under the hood -even with the inclusion of new additions- it luckily > still is Smalltalk. > How can it be not: even the newer Pharo additions are in fact.. classes > written in Smalltalk? > > Making too much distinctions and differences between various implementations > and dialects of Smalltalk is not a good idea I think. You all want to > promote Smalltalk? Then Stick Together As Smalltalkers no matter > what version or dialect one is using! > Does this sound alien to you, maybe? > > To, me personally, it doesn't make much difference because luckily most > Smalltalk > implementations are mostly quite similar, allowing me to switch if needed > between (in arbitrary order , sigh) Squeak, Pharo, VisualWorks etc. > without too much effort. > > In making too much distinctions, you are in fact dividing > the Smalltalk community, which is bad in Smalltalk's fragile world. > Smalltalk, indeed, OOP already has too much opposition > of those sticking to other programming techniques etc. > > Kind Regards > TedvG > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >
