"Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"

> Dear Johan,
>
> I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is
> not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I
> considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the
> Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
>
> By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk"
> corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those is that in this
> light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community.

> Whether you reckon the
> word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is your personal feeling.
> Divorce is a usual term describing the splitting of a former whole. I
> don't find it aggressive.
>
> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved -
> to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in
> emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that
> that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't
> think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk. If
> it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away from some Smalltalk
> concept (technical or non-technical) it should be said so, and whith
> regards to which concept and into what differing direction. There are
> many ways to the future. No problem with that. Smalltalk will walk its path.
>
> Cheers
> Helge
> „Wege entstehen dadurch, dass man sie geht.“, Franz Kafka
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Von:* Johan Fabry <[hidden email]>
> *An:* Helge Nowak <[hidden email]>
> *CC:* "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>;
> "[hidden email]"
> <[hidden email]>; ESUG <[hidden email]>
> *Gesendet:* 12:24 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014
> *Betreff:* Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Helge Nowak <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>  > Dear Pharoers,
>  >
>  > I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live
> Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. …
> we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we
> want to move towards the future”. This implies three things:
>  >     • Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
>
> Well, the question may also be: what IS Smalltalk? The ANSI Standard?
> ST-80? Whose implementation IS Smalltalk in that case? I think many
> current implementations may safely say that they are Smalltalk-inpired.
>
>  >     • All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
>
> I think you are overgeneralizing. Doru is saying that Pharo is not
> sticking to (let’s say) the historical concept of Smalltalk. Sure, you
> may imply from that that some Smalltalks ARE sticking to that concept.
> But IMO it is not valid to conclude that he is saying that ALL of them
> are like that.
>
>  >     • The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community
> that gave them birth
>
> I don’t follow your reasoning. Divorce is a very strong and aggressive
> statement. I don’t see that from what Doru is saying. Could you provide
> more detail for your train of thought?
>
>
>  > I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the
> Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
>
>
> Just my 0.02EUR ...
>
> ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org
> <http://emailcharter.org/><---
>
> Johan Fabry  - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
> PLEIAD lab  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of Chile
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>

> Dear Johan,
>
> I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what
> is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I
> considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the
> Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
>
> By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired,
> non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those
> is that in this light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community.
> Whether you reckon the word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is
> your personal feeling. Divorce is a usual term describing the
> splitting of a former whole. I don't find it aggressive.
>
> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved
> - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community
> in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies
> that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I
> don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to
> Smalltalk. If it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away
> from some Smalltalk concept (technical or non-technical) it should be
> said so, and whith regards to which concept and into what differing
> direction. There are many ways to the future. No problem with that.
> Smalltalk will walk its path.
>
> Cheers
> Helge
> „Wege entstehen dadurch, dass man sie geht.“, Franz Kafka
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Von:* Johan Fabry <[hidden email]>
> *An:* Helge Nowak <[hidden email]>
> *CC:* "[hidden email]"
> <[hidden email]>;
> "[hidden email]"
> <[hidden email]>; ESUG <[hidden email]>
> *Gesendet:* 12:24 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014
> *Betreff:* Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Helge Nowak <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> > Dear Pharoers,
> >
> > I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on
> Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk
> inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired
> because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things:
> >     • Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
>
> Well, the question may also be: what IS Smalltalk? The ANSI Standard?
> ST-80? Whose implementation IS Smalltalk in that case? I think many
> current implementations may safely say that they are Smalltalk-inpired.
>
> >     • All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
>
> I think you are overgeneralizing. Doru is saying that Pharo is not
> sticking to (let’s say) the historical concept of Smalltalk. Sure, you
> may imply from that that some Smalltalks ARE sticking to that concept.
> But IMO it is not valid to conclude that he is saying that ALL of them
> are like that.
>
> >     • The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community
> that gave them birth
>
> I don’t follow your reasoning. Divorce is a very strong and aggressive
> statement. I don’t see that from what Doru is saying. Could you
> provide more detail for your train of thought?
>
>
> > I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the
> Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
>
>
> Just my 0.02EUR ...
>
> ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org 
> <http://emailcharter.org/><---
>
> Johan Fabry  -  http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry <http://pleiad.cl/%7Ejfabry>
> PLEIAD lab  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of Chile
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Esug-list mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>  
>

>
>> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved
>> - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community
>> in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies
>> that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I
>> don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
>
>
> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
> implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
> single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
> itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
>
> I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
> professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
> niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
> namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act
> together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held
> Pharo back.
>
> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
> object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with
> people wallowing in past greatness.
>
> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people
> are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in
> *other* environments nowadays.
> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where
> we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can
> readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that
> Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk
> IDE did is telling.
>
> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after
> browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we
> still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level
> and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
> level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
> Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
> requirements and decisions -- go figure).
> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed
> many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of
> refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>
>
> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
> dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>
> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
> *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we
> sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>
>
>
>
> Go Doru,
>    Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
> won't let you.
>
>
>
>
> Reinout
> -
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>

> Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
> thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place.  Before we write
> more emails, though, please consider the following...
>
> We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury.  Our lives
> and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an organized
> fashion.  It is essential to keep conversations open, professional, and
> widget focused.  However, email's high latency tends to promote an
> increasingly defensive posture.  So, ideally, those interested in tackling
> these challenges would get on the same page in person.  We can start doing
> that just two weeks from now (*and* over beer or equivalent).  I'm looking
> forward to it :).
>
>
> On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved
>>> - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community
>>> in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies
>>> that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I
>>> don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
>> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
>> implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
>> single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
>> itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
>>
>> I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
>> professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
>> niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
>> namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act
>> together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held
>> Pharo back.
>>
>> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
>> object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with
>> people wallowing in past greatness.
>>
>> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people
>> are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in
>> *other* environments nowadays.
>> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where
>> we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can
>> readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that
>> Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk
>> IDE did is telling.
>>
>> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after
>> browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we
>> still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level
>> and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
>> level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
>> Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
>> requirements and decisions -- go figure).
>> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed
>> many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of
>> refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>>
>>
>> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
>> dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>>
>> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
>> *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we
>> sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Go Doru,
>>    Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
>> won't let you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Reinout
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esug-list mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

> Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
> thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place.  Before we
> write more emails, though, please consider the following...
>
> We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury.  Our
> lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an
> organized fashion.  It is essential to keep conversations open,
> professional, and widget focused.  However, email's high latency tends
> to promote an increasingly defensive posture.  So, ideally, those
> interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in
> person.  We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over
> beer or equivalent).  I'm looking forward to it :).
>
>
> On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always
>>> evolved
>>> - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a
>>> community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future
>>> silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i.
>>> e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
>> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
>> implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
>> single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
>> itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
>>
>> I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
>> professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
>> niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
>> namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its
>> act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community
>> held Pharo back.
>>
>> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
>> object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!)
>> with people wallowing in past greatness.
>>
>> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that
>> people are experimenting with new(ish) software development
>> methodologies in
>> *other* environments nowadays.
>> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE
>> where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains
>> can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations.
>> Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before
>> the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
>>
>> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework
>> after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects
>> and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at
>> ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
>> level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
>> Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
>> requirements and decisions -- go figure).
>> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not
>> changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the
>> introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>>
>>
>> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
>> dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>>
>> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
>> *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where
>> we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Go Doru,
>>    Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
>> won't let you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Reinout
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esug-list mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

>
> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness.
>
> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in *other* environments nowadays.
> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
>
> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure).
> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>
>
> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>
> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>
>
>
>
> Go Doru,
>   Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you.
>
>
>
>
> Reinout
> -
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org