a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
Locked
12345
12345
a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
 
|
… more a Smalltalk one using Pharo:
MountainWest RubyConf 2014 Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalk” Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. It seems like it should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar Object-Oriented structures, it even has blocks. But everything is so slightly different, from the programming environment, to the 1-based arrays, to the simple syntax. Using Smalltalk will make you look at familiar constructs with new eyes. We’ll show you how to get started on Smalltalk, and walk through some sample code. Live coding may be involved. You’ll never look at objects the same way again. http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-smalltalk |
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
very cool presentation. Definitely you need to add this to the new website. Question : Why in every presentation we have to apologise why smalltalk is dead / extinct ? As a newcomer to Smalltalk I find it quite annoying. Its not as if I came to Smalltalk without knowing that is not popular. The vast majority of languages out there are so more unpopular than Smalltalk, yet they don't have this "sorry that I am dead" mentality to them.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote: … more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: |
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:58 PM, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pharo is a strategic platform to me. Productivity on that thing cannot be beaten. Still had proof today when looking for a nasty bug. Phil
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by kilon.alios
Am 28.04.2014 um 18:58 schrieb kilon alios <[hidden email]>: +1 Well said. Norbert
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and language that is Smalltalk-inspired. We do not need to apologize because Pharo was never dead :). Doru
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Every thing has its own flow"
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by kilon.alios
On Apr 28, 2014, at 1:58 PM, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote: very cool presentation. Definitely you need to add this to the new website. Is not on video but for what’s worth, I don’t know from were you take that impression but I’m pretty sure that what you described in the previous paragraph was not the impression the audience got from my talk. “Dead / extinct” for the industry is a matter of nailing it when you expose talent and the tools that can expand it. Can you do cool projects with it? if you do then that’s your place, good for you, go for more, and give something in return. The hard work of this community is continuing the legacy of an inspiring legend. A legend that inspires them when you take the time and effort to break with self-serving tasks and start to expose it instead
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
We went through this a few months ago. Pharo isn't inspired by Smalltalk; it /is/ a Smalltalk. Trying to be mealy-mouthed about it and claiming inspiration, rather than proudly declaring its a Smalltalk is IMO as bad as apologizing for it being dead.
We don't need to avoid the S word either...
best, Eliot
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
2014-04-28 14:38 GMT-03:00 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: >> That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and language >> that is Smalltalk-inspired. > We went through this a few months ago. Pharo isn't inspired by Smalltalk; > it /is/ a Smalltalk. Trying to be mealy-mouthed about it and claiming > inspiration, rather than proudly declaring its a Smalltalk is IMO as bad as > apologizing for it being dead. I totally agree here. Esteban. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
+1 Smalltalk heritage and its future should be carried on by "Pharo Smalltalk".
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and language that is Smalltalk-inspired. nice joke Talking of Smalltalk-inspired…. Ruby is that, and is very successful BTW So, yeah, we are aware that it would be incredibly lame to try to fool ourselves and the world by trying to sell the idea that Pharo is not a Smalltalk. |
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus Denker-4
It is good when an "outsider" talks about your stuff, they have views
we simply can't have because reflection is not always possible. I think he nails the point about the shift from what's become important and what not (24:45), and the monolithic or mandatory approach of Smalltalk in general, vs the small utilities working together (Mainly Rule of Composition and Rule of Diversity). http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html I think this has to do with the fact that Smalltalk was born with a GUI, and then built down from there, instead of being born as a command line program with an added GUI layer on top. However, thank you for sharing, it is a good presentation. And I like to see the enthusiasm of other when they meet Smalltalk. The MagLev presentation is good too (http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3285-mwrc-maglev-from-download-to-deploy). Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo 2014-04-28 13:12 GMT-03:00 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>: > … more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: > > MountainWest RubyConf 2014 > > Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalk” > > Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. It seems like it should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar Object-Oriented structures, it even has blocks. But everything is so slightly different, from the programming environment, to the 1-based arrays, to the simple syntax. Using Smalltalk will make you look at familiar constructs with new eyes. We’ll show you how to get started on Smalltalk, and walk through some sample code. Live coding may be involved. You’ll never look at objects the same way again. > > http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-smalltalk |
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by sebastianconcept@gmail.co
Sebastian you are absolutely correct, I did not understand that he was referring to a stereotype that ruby community has about smalltalk. I apologize.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Sebastian Sastre <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:57 PM, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote: Sebastian you are absolutely correct, I did not understand that he was referring to a stereotype that ruby community has about smalltalk. I apologize. Is important that we talk these things so we understand how to break stereotypes that aren’t doing any good. So thanks for expressing it |
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by sebastianconcept@gmail.co
Hi, I do not claim that Pharo does not look like a Smalltalk now. It does as it shares quite a bit with the model. But, I do claim that it already has distinctive characteristics that make it go away from a "classic" Smalltalk. And there will be more and more in the future.
So, what is better as a communication strategy: - to say that Pharo is "a Smalltalk with traits, modular compiler, slots and moldable debugger, ... (more to come in this list)", or
- to say that Pharo "is a modern Smalltalk-inspired system?" ? We are not fooling anyone. We simply state that while we respect everything that Smalltalk stands for, Pharo will not be bound to it. This is not being disrespectful, it is simply creating the premise to look at how else we can invent the future. And there is so much to invent there.
Doru On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Sebastian Sastre <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Every thing has its own flow"
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by sebastianconcept@gmail.co
my pleasure I missed a couple of words he said in the video, hence my misunderstanding. As always few words are enough to turn a meaning on its head. Watched it once more and now it clear that he presented Smalltalk in a very fair manner. I also completely agree with his criticism on smalltalk of being unsafe (though the same can be said about python and ruby and C/C++ and loads of other programming languages out there) and not playing well with others. Great demo for Smalltalk, realistic and fair.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Sebastian Sastre <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Fair enough.
But to me the distinction is like Scheme and Common Lisp. They're dialects of Lisp. Other example is Racket, that tries to sell itself as a superior Lisp/Scheme, as TypeScript tries to sell itself as a superset of JavaScript :) To me, they're all Lisp. As Pharo IS Smalltalk. Smalltalk as a moniker, not as a particular spec. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo 2014-04-28 15:24 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > I do not claim that Pharo does not look like a Smalltalk now. It does as it > shares quite a bit with the model. But, I do claim that it already has > distinctive characteristics that make it go away from a "classic" Smalltalk. > And there will be more and more in the future. > > So, what is better as a communication strategy: > - to say that Pharo is "a Smalltalk with traits, modular compiler, slots and > moldable debugger, ... (more to come in this list)", or > - to say that Pharo "is a modern Smalltalk-inspired system?" > ? > > We are not fooling anyone. We simply state that while we respect everything > that Smalltalk stands for, Pharo will not be bound to it. This is not being > disrespectful, it is simply creating the premise to look at how else we can > invent the future. And there is so much to invent there. > > Doru > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Sebastian Sastre > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and language >> that is Smalltalk-inspired. >> >> We do not need to apologize because Pharo was never dead :). >> >> >> nice joke >> >> Talking of Smalltalk-inspired…. Ruby is that, and is very successful BTW >> >> So, yeah, we are aware that it would be incredibly lame to try to fool >> ourselves and the world by trying to sell the idea that Pharo is not a >> Smalltalk. >> > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" |
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
Hi Eliot, I know we went through it, and we still disagree :). I have provided detailed arguments and I have seen no others that did refute mine. I am certainly open to talking about it. I have no intention of lying or hiding. I am rather proud to be part of this community and to do my bit of contributing.
But, please understand that my main concern is getting Pharo adopted which is what other Smalltalk rooted systems did not really manage until now. There are many ways to say the same thing. Some people will resonate with some messages, and some others will pick holes in them. I will focus on increasing the first set of people while preserving the semantics I believe in.
Doru On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Every thing has its own flow"
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, I'll bite :-). Point me to the arguments and I'll have a go at refutation. But my statement that Pharo is a Smalltalk boils own to the facts that Smalltalk has always evolved (Multiple inheritance was a discarded experiment that is in Smalltalk-80 for example, Tweak contains a sort-of slot idea, as another) and that Pharo's evolutions are no different to other evolutions that have enriched Smalltalk but not redefined it, and that one way to tell is to see if the VM or instruction set needs to be radically different to implement the system efficiently. So there's nothing un-Smalltalk about traits, or slots or a modular compiler.
Us both.
Quite. Agreed.
best, Eliot
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
I think for people coming outside , it wont matter whether Pharo is Smalltalk or Smalltalk-inspired. Chances are that they wont care about the semantics at all, just "what pharo can do for me now". And its great you all focus on the practical side and not the philosophical side. Also if you think about it even though you may disagree what you should name Pharo as, as soon as you start describing Pharo in detail you will be saying the exact same things. I think the secret is not to try to make people understand what Pharo is in a few words. Just describing what live coding means for Pharo is a rather long talk. Unfortunately thats the downside when you creating a quite different product from what already exists out there, your users will take some time to realyl appreciate what the fuzz is all about.
When I started with python it was BOOM "a dynamic language that tries to keep things simple and small" , thats what python is all about. Took me literally a couple of days to realise what I had in front me.
With Squeak and Pharo it took several tries, it took me a couple of days to realise the importance of blocks and why loops and ifs had to to use this strange thing. I once laughed at the video when he pointed that pressing enter on workspace does not run the code. That was a "WTF" moment for me when I first tried workspace in Squeak. Many other strange things , instance variables by default private , Transcript separate from Workspace, no source files etc etc.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
On Apr 28, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
The first pitch totally sucks of course but for the sake of getting to your point, it depends on who the audience is, right? If you’re trying too hard to differentiate yourself from other Smalltalk dialects, then “modern Smalltalk-inspired system” might have a chance. But what that chance might lead you to? What’s the best thing that can happen with that strategy? That you steal some market space for your preferred dialect in a zero-sum game of an already very small community? Okay, let’s talk about the opposite direction. A non-zero-sum game. What about trying to connect with a wider audience? You’ll need something that serves as foundation to build on top of. Something inspiring. Now let’s do the numbers.. A) What’s the size of the whole smalltalk community? what you can have from it? 2%? 10%? 20% conversion? let’s say you get 80% because you’re amazing beyond disbelief. B) What’s the size of the whole dynamic technology community? if you get 0.001% from it you multiplied the smalltalkers on the surface of this planet by x100 times So what strategy really deserves your effort? For me it’s pretty clear where the winner and looser communication strategy resides, I actually saw it in action and it wasn’t even hard. I also assume we’re for a winner strategy but I actually have no idea on how Pharo is managing its branding and Smalltalk has still to prove to itself it can actually market itself properly |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |