Hi, Can you point me to how to unsubscribe. Obviously not the list for me.
Thanks, Steve On Wed, 05 Feb 2020, 18:04 Esteban Lorenzano, <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
