About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
Locked
123
123
About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
 
|
I think it is time again to remind people on this list about a subtle but important difference:
pharo is not smalltalk You can read this either way and like it or not. But this is a pharo list which wants to focus on the development and usage of pharo. It is not the place for "all things smalltalk". If you have a smalltalk topic please find the appropriate channel to publish or advocate. There are many smalltalkers out there that do not read this list. So in order to reach the people that are interested in smalltalk there are plenty of better channels to put things there. We know that a bit of off-topic discussion is normal but we want to remind everyone to try keeping that really low or find better channels to put that. Norbert |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 <[hidden email]> 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 > |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
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, <[hidden email]> wrote: We are so over this discussion. |
|
|
Le 5 févr. 2020 à 17:08, Steve Davies <[hidden email]> a écrit :
|
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, Cédrick Béler <[hidden email]> wrote: Thanks. My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing code going back to ST80. I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. Where are the better places for a Smalltalk (Pharo?) newbie to ask questions and follow along to deepen my understanding? Thanks, Steve |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Steve Davies
<[hidden email]> wrote: > I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. Pharo is the political division(*) , Smalltalk was is the same territory. From now on you can call it Pharo because it was built with its own merits, but you can't deny that regardless of the new flag, there was Smalltalk in the same territory. :-) Regards, (*) In cases like this, literally an arbitrary border. Esteban A. Maringolo |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Davies
Hi Steve,
> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:21, Steve Davies <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, Cédrick Béler <[hidden email]> wrote: > https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > > > Thanks. > > My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing code going back to ST80. I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. > > Where are the better places for a Smalltalk (Pharo?) newbie to ask questions and follow along to deepen my understanding? > > Thanks, > Steve As long as you ask questions about Pharo, this is the place. It does not matter that you would use the term Smalltalk when doing so or when learning. This is not the place to talk about fishing, time travel, different shades of blue, ... The context should always be Pharo, it is very simple. Sven BTW: 'Smalltalk' is a concept, not a single concrete language, and certainly not a single implementation. |
|
|
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
> pharo is not smalltalk
I understand that Pharo wants to chart its own future, and that's great, but to deny its heritage only makes Pharo look haughty and foolish because... Pharo *is* Smalltalk in the same way that VisualWorks is Smalltalk and VA Smalltalk is Smalltalk and GemStone/S is Smalltalk and Squeak is Smalltalk and Dolphin Smalltalk is Smalltalk and so on. At their core, they're all Smalltalk. Their individual enhancements don't change this. And from 10,000 feet up, even their IDEs look all the same. It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are not LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... To be honest, I can't fathom the reason for denying that Pharo is Smalltalk. I don't see what it accomplishes. Smalltalk's heritage is not an albatross... it's a Russian rocket launcher <https://smalltalk.tech.blog/2020/01/19/why-smalltalk-is-so-easy-to-evangelize/> . > So in order to reach the people that are interested in smalltalk there are > plenty of better channels to put things there. Like what??? Name me one place that's well-populated and actively maintained for Smalltalk discussion. I scoured the web for such places and they were all ghost towns. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
> 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. Who's "we"? Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core developers; it's a community. And I believe there are many Pharoers who share my view. Since I'm a Smalltalk evangelist and not a Pharo evangelist, I guess I shouldn't ever mention Pharo in my blog. After all, if it's not Smalltalk, why should I promote it??? In fact, this is disastrous for my JRMPC competition since it's based entirely on Pharo. I'm promoting Smalltalk but pushing Pharo on all the participating teams??? What the f*ck am I doing?!! -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
In reply to this post by horrido
> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido <[hidden email]> wrote: > > It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are not > LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't want you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about general lisp revivals. Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't do based on their history. |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
In reply to this post by horrido
> On 5 Feb 2020, at 19:01, horrido <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> 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. > > Who's "we"? > > Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core > developers; it's a community. And I believe there are many Pharoers who > share my view. > > Since I'm a Smalltalk evangelist and not a Pharo evangelist, I guess I > shouldn't ever mention Pharo in my blog. After all, if it's not Smalltalk, > why should I promote it??? > > In fact, this is disastrous for my JRMPC competition since it's based > entirely on Pharo. I'm promoting Smalltalk but pushing Pharo on all the > participating teams??? What the f*ck am I doing?!! You don't understand: we don't deny our history or our family, we just don't want to be defined or constraint by it, nor do we want our mailing lists to be used for other purposes than to talk about Pharo. |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Davies
Am 05.02.2020 um 18:22 schrieb Steve Davies <[hidden email]>: I‘m sorry for the confusion. But this list is exactly for people like you. If you take pharo and have a question or a problem this is the list to ask. The current threads are to ensure this list stays useful for this purpose. And that‘s why we want to reduce non-pharo related stuff and misuse of this list Please stay, Norbert
|
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
In reply to this post by horrido
Am 05.02.2020 um 19:02 schrieb horrido <[hidden email]>: As you have obviously trouble reading our web site for instructions like bug reporting or other things I copy the footer for you. „ Pharo is developed by an international community of open-source developers, coordinated and maintained by the pharo consortium and receives essential support from Inria, RMOD, CNRS, UDL, Cristal and many others.“ So we are a lot of core developers, Inria staff, consortium members and pharo board although I‘m not speaking on their behalf.
It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it I just know that you are reluctant for a very long time to hear what we are saying. The rest is yours Norbert
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2
Yes, these are two completely different issues...
- Pharo is Smalltalk - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum I get it. But as I point out here <http://forum.world.st/Fuzzy-Thinking-in-Smalltalk-tp5111111p5111191.html> , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community is willing to participate in evangelizing Smalltalk. If there is truly another avenue that is as effective, I'm all ears. Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > wrote: >> >> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are not >> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. > > I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't want > you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about > general lisp revivals. > > Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't do > based on their history. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html |
Re: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
|
|
In reply to this post by horrido
st 5. 2. 2020 v 19:02 odesílatel horrido <[hidden email]> napsal: > You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. We Pharo 8.0 release Reddit discussion included some feedback you may appreciate: "Thanks. Does this Pharo release removes feature "Richard Kenneth Eng"? That was the only feature in detriment to such an excellent environment as Pharo." "I really like the idea of pharo's features and smalltalk is quite interesting, but I can't help but be put off by the insanely stupid marketing culture around it. Most articles about it exaggerate way too much and seem like they're written by people who were paid to write about it. Or maybe I'm reading Medium-cancer too much." In fact, this is disastrous for my JRMPC competition since it's based |
|
|
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
> It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it
Well, that's a peculiar attitude. There are many, many programming language evangelists and I don't think anybody "asked" them to do it. They do it for the love of the language. I hear what you're saying, and I understand fully. I just don't agree with it entirely. I think it's short-sighted. Smalltalk has long been criticized for being a secluded island, and now you want to do the same for Pharo? Even as I try to build bridges to the island? You could ban everybody from this forum who aren't focussed 100% on Pharo and you'd have a much smaller community. You could ban everybody who is a Smalltalker. The result is a much more tightly focussed forum, clean and free from distractions. Fine. But what is the long-term cost? Smalltalk evangelism would come to an end. Why? Because frankly nobody is interested in the other Smalltalks. Pharo is where all the action is. And without Smalltalk evangelism, I don't see a path for Pharo becoming more than a niche language. Pharo doesn't show up an *any* language popularity index. At least Clojure, Erlang/Elixir, and Haskell are in the top 30 in several places. At Indeed, there are 18 job postings in the United States that mention Smalltalk, and none for Pharo. Even Clojure has 404, Erlang has 274, and Haskell has 519, pathetic though these numbers are. Yes, I also understand that there are many Pharoers who don't care about remaining niche. That's a tragedy. I would rather not have wasted the last five years of my life. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by horrido
As you state, you use Smalltalk as the superset of all Smalltalk descendance, what Sven call ‘Concept’ and this is true to me. But, as I understand it (I’m not a board member), if called « Smalltalk », then some people will ask (and debate) so that Pharo has to be conform to ANSI Smalltalk standard (the standard approved on May 19, 1998). Pharo is a fork of squeak and can be seen as Smalltalk-80 grand-parent, Squeak being the parent ^^. Pharo wants to emancipate as all child. Squeak actually had/have this recurring question already [1]. Pharo *from the start* decided not to be ANSI compliant as it is orthogonal to the envisioned progress/changes (Trait are one first example and this really was a hard discussion and probably what settled the fork). I think Pharo founders wanted to avoid flaming wars again on design and architectural decisions by trying to squeeze this aspect (not a pure smalltalk so do no expect ANSI compliance) and now, as a result, we get this backlashing thread where people feel Pharo don’t assume Smalltalk heritage. Life is often ironic :-s. Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life, and even if they share lots of the same ADN. My 2 cents, Cédrick
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3
I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the
critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? If you're an evangelist, you have to develop a thick skin and follow your heart. Otherwise, get out of the kitchen... Pavel Krivanek-3 wrote > st 5. 2. 2020 v 19:02 odesílatel horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > napsal: > >> > 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. >> >> Who's "we"? >> >> Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core >> developers; it's a community. And I believe there are many Pharoers who >> share my view. >> >> Since I'm a Smalltalk evangelist and not a Pharo evangelist, I guess I >> shouldn't ever mention Pharo in my blog. After all, if it's not >> Smalltalk, >> why should I promote it??? >> > > Pharo 8.0 release Reddit discussion included some feedback you > may appreciate: > > "Thanks. Does this Pharo release removes feature "Richard Kenneth Eng"? > That was the only feature in detriment to such an excellent environment as > Pharo." > > "I really like the idea of pharo's features and smalltalk is quite > interesting, but I can't help but be put off by the insanely stupid > marketing culture around it. Most articles about it exaggerate way too > much > and seem like they're written by people who were paid to write about it. > Or > maybe I'm reading Medium-cancer too much." > > > >> In fact, this is disastrous for my JRMPC competition since it's based >> entirely on Pharo. I'm promoting Smalltalk but pushing Pharo on all the >> participating teams??? What the f*ck am I doing?!! >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >> >> -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by cedreek
I don't think conformance or non-conformance to ANSI is important. This is a
red herring. If Pharo becomes mainstream, nobody will care about ANSI conformance. Ditto for any other flavour of Smalltalk. > Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life And VisualWorks doesn't have its own life? How about VA Smalltalk? This is sophistry. cedreek wrote >> Le 5 févr. 2020 à 19:50, horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > a écrit : >> >> Yes, these are two completely different issues... >> >> - Pharo is Smalltalk > > As you state, you use Smalltalk as the superset of all Smalltalk > descendance, what Sven call ‘Concept’ and this is true to me. > > But, as I understand it (I’m not a board member), if called « Smalltalk », > then some people will ask (and debate) so that Pharo has to be conform to > ANSI Smalltalk standard (the standard approved on May 19, 1998). > > Pharo is a fork of squeak and can be seen as Smalltalk-80 grand-parent, > Squeak being the parent ^^. > Pharo wants to emancipate as all child. Squeak actually had/have this > recurring question already [1]. > > Pharo *from the start* decided not to be ANSI compliant as it is > orthogonal to the envisioned progress/changes (Trait are one first example > and this really was a hard discussion and probably what settled the fork). > > I think Pharo founders wanted to avoid flaming wars again on design and > architectural decisions by trying to squeeze this aspect (not a pure > smalltalk so do no expect ANSI compliance) and now, as a result, we get > this backlashing thread where people feel Pharo don’t assume Smalltalk > heritage. Life is often ironic :-s. > > Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life, and even if they > share lots of the same ADN. > > My 2 cents, > > Cédrick > > [1] https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172 > <https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172> > > > > >> >> - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum >> >> I get it. But as I point out here >> <http://forum.world.st/Fuzzy-Thinking-in-Smalltalk-tp5111111p5111191.html> >> , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community >> is >> willing to participate in evangelizing Smalltalk. >> >> If there is truly another avenue that is as effective, I'm all ears. >> >> >> >> Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >>>> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido < >> >>> horrido.hobbies@ >> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are >>>> not >>>> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. >>> >>> I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't >>> want >>> you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about >>> general lisp revivals. >>> >>> Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't >>> do >>> based on their history. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >> -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |