[Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference
kilon.alios at gmail.com
Wed Apr 30 16:02:03 EDT 2014
We should not forget the "Java is dead" craze over a decade ago. It was the
time where dynamic language like python and ruby were gaining a lot of
traction but here we are a decade later and Java is alive and kicking.
I seriously doubt that there are a lot of people out there that take
"Smalltalk dead" seriously when the internet is littered with "C is Dead" ,
Its just a meaningless word that people love to use in a desperate attempt
to get more hits and appear in Google results. Its more like a joke.
I completely agree with you that "Smalltalk inspired" is reinforcing "Sorry
for dead Smalltalk , we will try to follow its legacy, RIP Smalltalk" , at
least this is how I see it. I may be wrong.
The question I want to raise is how many coders out there are even aware
what Smalltalk really is ? I was not aware of Smalltalk 2 years ago. Thats
the sad truth.
Another mistake is that people tend to over idealising Smalltalk and it
appears as if Smalltalk used to be popular, but I have found no evidence
that Smalltalk was ever popular. Again I may be wrong but this is also
maybe a motivation to regard Smalltalk dead.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:38 PM, vfclists . <vfclists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 April 2014 19:33, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2014-04-30 15:07 GMT-03:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin at gmail.com>:
>> > Here is an unfortunate quote from that thread.
>> > """
>> > emaringolo 1 point an hour ago
>> > Pharo is aimed to do serious/business development, and it's been
>> > itself since its conception (several years ago when it forked from
>> > It doesn't want to have any backward or "historic" compatibility with
>> > Smalltalks.
>> > You can see its changelogs and the roadmap for future versions to see
>> how it
>> > is different, and how it will be different.
>> > """
>> > This makes it sound like Pharo wants remove compatibility simply for the
>> > sake of not being a Smalltalk. As opposed to what I believe Esteban
>> > And yes I understand that English is not his native language, and there
>> > many for whom it is, who still use it poorly.
>> That's certainly an interpretation.
>> I didn't mean it wants to REMOVE compatibility, but I did mean it
>> doesn't wan't backward compatibility with Smalltalk per se. Sometimes
>> it isn't compatible with previous versions of itself!
>> I remember having read exactly that: "we don't want backward
>> > What I believe he meant, is that Pharo will not be constrained by
>> backward compatibility.
>> > If a change or feature that is of value to Pharo Smalltalk. That
>> feature will be done even
>> > if it means breaking backward compatibility with other Smalltalk 80
>> > Smalltalks.
>> This is exactly what I meant.
>> > We are moving forward. But this does not invalidate Pharo being
>> > a Smalltalk. As has been stated before, breaking changes happened in
>> > Smalltalk 76 and 80.
>> As a disclaimer I'm a strong defender of not hiding the "Smalltalk"
>> heritage in Pharo.
>> However there is no need to name something "Pharo Smalltalk" to have a
>> connection with its past, but also no need to avoid any mention of the
>> word Smalltalk in the new home page. At least from the SEO point of
>> view. :)
>> Esteban A. Maringolo
> The problem here is that if you downplay the Smalltalk foundations of
> Pharo then you only reinforce the impression that Smalltalk is outdated
> when it is revealed that Pharo is a Smalltalk. What matters more is whether
> Pharo is a "Smalltalk done right", or Smalltalk for the New web 3.0 era,
> where none of the popular languages offer a live coding environment.
> An open source Smalltalk should really target Python in the areas where
> Python is used as a scripting front end to systems written in higher
> performance languages, ie stuff like Blender, Unity, Gephi etc. Power users
> who need live interactive environments should be the main target of a tool
> like Pharo. That also fits with early Smalltalk designers principles which
> were focused on helping end users model their stuff, children to a large
> For software developers something like Smalltalk/X would probably be a
> better bet if the licensing could draw more developers to it, or one of the
> other Java based Smalltalk if they were finished. They need better
> interoperability and the ability to drop down to C or some other low level
> language when they need it. Software developers are not thinking about what
> they can do with it now, they are thinking of what they will not be able to
> do with it 18 months down the line.
> Frank Church
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pharo-dev