[Pharo-dev] Feature request poll

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Nov 5 19:10:15 EST 2013

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:01 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier at cea.fr>wrote:

> I find this debate interesting... but a bit strange
> For me, Smalltalk-80 is what is inside the 80's book, and no
> implementation of Smalltalk was really Smalltalk-80 but something else
> (some principles plus a huge amount of code)... Pharo is no more different
> from Smalltalk-80 than all the others were, and, compared to Self, Pharo
> looks like a very tame variant :)
> So for me, Pharo will stay Pharo Smalltalk: a member of a large family
> which I had the pleasure to work in and use for a very long time, and in
> many different shapes but still respecting the same core principles.

+1.  Saying Pharo is not a Smalltalk is clearly absurd.  At the risk of
getting into a "what have the romans done for us?" thread, I'll say the
following.   The syntax is a superset of Smalltalk-80 (additions being
literal ByteArrays, pragmas, class messages for creating weak arrays &
ephemerons).  The class library is a superset of Smalltalk-80 plus bug
fixes.  The only significant extensions are closures, exceptions and
traits, but exceptions and traits, much like Dan Ingall's and Alan
Borning's multiple inheritance implementation in Smalltalk-80 is done in
the language.  Closures are nicer than SMalltalk-80 blocks, but they're the
same essential light-weight lambda idea with somewhat improved semantics,
and all that was wrong with Smalltalk-80 blocks was the lack of reentrancy.

A language like Newspeak is "Smalltalk-inspired".  It differs significantly
(semantics: nested classes, lexically-scoped outer sends, mixins,
syntax: ability to elide self, initialization of temps with their
declaration).  I don't see the point of saying Pharo is not Smalltalk.  I
see the point of saying Pharo is not Squeak, and I thoguht that was the
point.  But saying Pharo is not Smalltalk is petty larceny.

> Thierry
> ________________________________________
> De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces at lists.pharo.org] de la part de Sean P.
> DeNigris [sean at clipperadams.com]
> Date d'envoi : mardi 5 novembre 2013 17:53
> À : pharo-dev at lists.pharo.org
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Feature request poll
> Tudor Girba-2 wrote
> > Pharo is Pharo. And we should promote it like that.
> It is inherently confusing because originally "Smalltalk" meant "a
> language/environment that's continually reinvented every 4 years based on
> the knowledge gained by the last iteration". Then, Smalltalk-80 was frozen
> and released, and "Smalltalk" was repurposed in the wider world as a
> shorthand for Smalltalk-80. So, one would be correct in saying that Pharo
> is
> Smalltalk in the original meaning, as the next iteration after 80 (although
> it missed the 4 year target by a bit ha ha).
> But, since the nearly universal understanding of "Smalltalk" is
> Smalltalk-80, the "more true" and practical choice is to say that Pharo is
> Smalltalk-inspired (i.e. inspired by Smalltalk-80, but clearly not
> Smalltalk-80).
> HTH.
> -----
> Cheers,
> Sean
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://forum.world.st/Feature-request-poll-tp4718993p4719415.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20131105/84c6e5f3/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list