Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

I added a german wikipedia article on pharo.

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

11 messages Options

Helene Bilbo

I added a german wikipedia article on pharo.

Hi,
Pharo was not mentioned on german wikipedia, so i added a stub for an article. If you speak german, please extend it :) (i will try to continue myself the next days)

BTW is Pharo rather a 'Programming language' or an 'Implementation of a Programming language'?

regards, Helene.

Sean P. DeNigris

Re: I added a german wikipedia article on pharo.

Administrator

Helene Bilbo wrote

BTW is Pharo rather a 'Programming language' or an 'Implementation of a Programming language'?

Cheers,
Sean

Helene Bilbo

Re: I added a german wikipedia article on pharo.

Sean P. DeNigris wrote

Pharo, as a Smalltalk is "a powerful information system... that can grow as the user's ideas grow.". It is composed of a Programming Language - "an interface between the models in the human mind and those in computing hardware" - and a User Interface, which "matches the human communication system to that of the computer" (quotes from the Blue Book). As a live, open, dynamic environment, it is much more than just "a programming language", which is why straight syntax comparisons to other languages miss the point.

Yes you are right, of course. This should be taken into account in a wikipedia entry.

What my question was about, was rather: Is is still Smalltalk? And i ask, because the first line on the Pharo homepage says it’s: "Smalltalk-inspired“.

Marcus Denker-4

Re: I added a german wikipedia article on pharo.

On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:

>
> Sean P. DeNigris wrote
>>
>>
> Pharo, as a Smalltalk is "a powerful information system... that can grow as
> the user's ideas grow.". It is composed of a Programming Language - "an
> interface between the models in the human mind and those in computing
> hardware" - and a User Interface, which "matches the human communication
> system to that of the computer" (quotes from the Blue Book). As a live,
> open, dynamic environment, it is much more than just "a programming
> language", which is why straight syntax comparisons to other languages miss
> the point.
>
>
> Yes you are right, of course. This should be taken into account in a
> wikipedia entry.
>
> What my question was about, was rather: Is is still Smalltalk?

Right now I think it is. There is not much different. There are Traits, but else...

> And i ask,
> because the first line on the Pharo homepage says it’s:
> "Smalltalk-inspired“.

The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move
on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously
move forward.

E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk
it could not.

Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Janko Mivšek

Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)

Hi guys,

On 05. 07. 2012 11:07, Marcus Denker wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:

>> And i ask,
>> because the first line on the Pharo homepage says it’s:
>> "Smalltalk-inspired“.

> The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move
> on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously
> move forward.
>
> E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk
> it could not.

Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo
should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas
from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo
should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'.

Please, don't divide Smalltalk community but act as much as possible in
joint spirit! Which of course doesn't mean that moving forward is
necessary. And I also don't see why you cannot move forward and stay
Smalltalk? Certainly not from a Slots example.

If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and
improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth
supporting or not.

Best regards
Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Damien Cassou

Re: Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo
> should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas
> from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo
> should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'.

I think we just don't all have the definition of "Smalltalk". If
"Smalltalk" means the ANSI standard then Pharo will take the spririt
of Smalltalk but won't be a Smalltalk anymore as it won't be
compatible with the standard.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
popular by not having them." James Iry

Sven Van Caekenberghe

Re: Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)

In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek

On 05 Jul 2012, at 11:44, Janko Mivšek wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> On 05. 07. 2012 11:07, Marcus Denker wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:
>
>>> And i ask,
>>> because the first line on the Pharo homepage says it’s:
>>> "Smalltalk-inspired“.
>
>> The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move
>> on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously
>> move forward.
>>
>> E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk
>> it could not.
>
> Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo
> should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas
> from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo
> should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'.
>
> Please, don't divide Smalltalk community but act as much as possible in
> joint spirit! Which of course doesn't mean that moving forward is
> necessary. And I also don't see why you cannot move forward and stay
> Smalltalk? Certainly not from a Slots example.
>
> If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and
> improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth
> supporting or not.

But you have to read what Marcus said: Smalltalk could be and/or is defined by Smalltalk-80 and an ANSI spec. If we say that Pharo conforms to that, any of the very useful improvements being proposed will always be stopped in their tracks because the changes are not compatible with these old defacto standards. Pharo was started explicitely to avoid that.

For most casual observers I think it will remain Smalltalk.

Sven

philippeback

Re: Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)

It's Pharo Smalltalk

2012/7/5 Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]>

On 05 Jul 2012, at 11:44, Janko Mivšek wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> On 05. 07. 2012 11:07, Marcus Denker wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:
>
>>> And i ask,
>>> because the first line on the Pharo homepage says it’s:
>>> "Smalltalk-inspired“.
>
>> The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move
>> on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously
>> move forward.
>>
>> E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk
>> it could not.
>
> Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo
> should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas
> from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo
> should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'.
>
> Please, don't divide Smalltalk community but act as much as possible in
> joint spirit! Which of course doesn't mean that moving forward is
> necessary. And I also don't see why you cannot move forward and stay
> Smalltalk? Certainly not from a Slots example.
>
> If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and
> improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth
> supporting or not.

But you have to read what Marcus said: Smalltalk could be and/or is defined by Smalltalk-80 and an ANSI spec. If we say that Pharo conforms to that, any of the very useful improvements being proposed will always be stopped in their tracks because the changes are not compatible with these old defacto standards. Pharo was started explicitely to avoid that.

For most casual observers I think it will remain Smalltalk.

Sven

--
Philippe Back
Dramatic Performance Improvements
Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail: [hidden email] | Web: http://philippeback.eu | Blog: http://philippeback.be

High Octane SPRL
rue cour Boisacq 101
1301 Bierges
Belgium

Marcus Denker-4

Re: Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:

>> If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and
>> improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth
>> supporting or not.
>
> But you have to read what Marcus said: Smalltalk could be and/or is defined by Smalltalk-80 and an ANSI spec. If we say that Pharo conforms to that, any of the very useful improvements being proposed will always be stopped in their tracks because the changes are not compatible with these old defacto standards. Pharo was started explicitely to avoid that.
>
> For most casual observers I think it will remain Smalltalk

Yes, this is what I wanted to say.

Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Igor Stasenko

Re: Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)

In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek

On 5 July 2012 11:44, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pharo IS smalltalk.
Smalltalk by its nature are made to be easily changed.

I don't remember the precise quote from Alan Kay, where he said that
he feels a bit disappointed about the fact that people never thought
about having more subclasses of Behavior than just Class and Metaclass.

Please don't turn the idea into dogma.

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Sean P. DeNigris

Re: Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)

Administrator

Igor Stasenko wrote

Smalltalk by its nature are made to be easily changed.
...
Please don't turn the idea into dogma.

YES!!! Part of the confusion is that Smalltalk and Smalltalk-80 get collapsed, but are not the same. Smalltalk-80 was the fifth cycle (per the Blue Book) in what was supposed to be a continuous process of learning how to do systems...

Please see "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", Alan Kay's keynote, October 7, 1997, OOPSLA'97 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521 (if you must, skip to 57:25 for the part most relevant to this reply). Here are some quotes (in order of relevance):

"The deepest thing I would like to communicate with you today... is we don't know how to design systems yet. So let's not make what we don't know into a religion for god's sakes."

"The thing that I'm most proud of about Smalltalk - pretty much the only thing from my standpoint that I'm proud of - is that is has been so good at getting rid of previous versions of itself"

"One of the things we liked about Smalltalk was not what it could do, but the fact that it was such a good vehicle for bootstrapping the next set of ideas we had about how to do systems programming"

"We have to have our systems let us get to the next levels of abstraction as we come to them."

"A couple of years ago we started this project called Squeak, which is simply not an attempt to give the world a free Smalltalk, but an attempt to give the world a bootstrapping mechanism for something much better than Smalltalk, and when you fool around with Squeak, please, please, think of it from that standpoint. Think of how you can obsolete the damn thing by using its own mechanisms for getting the next version of itself."

Cheers,
Sean