[Pharo-project] Is Pharo a Smalltalk or Smalltalk inspired? (was I added a german wikipedia article on pharo)
Sven Van Caekenberghe
sven at beta9.be
Thu Jul 5 05:56:07 EDT 2012
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:
>> 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.
More information about the Pharo-dev