April 2014 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo is Smalltalkâ¦ and Not

by Andreas Wacknitz

Why not just 'Pharo is a Smalltalk for the 21st century. What we have now C#, Java and the like will try to âinvent" during the next thirty years! If you want the future now come and take a closer look...' Andreas

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Pharo 3.0 Released!

by Tudor Girba

Every once in a while, many little pieces come together and reveal a great puzzle. This is one of those moments. Fantastic work, everyone! Doru On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > Dear World, > > Pharo 3.0 (http://www.pharo.org) is here. > > [image: pastedGraphic.png] > > The past year seemed short as we got busy building more than usual. Many > things have changed in Pharo. Here are the highlights: > - The new modular Opal compiler is now the default compiler used in the > system. > - The Athens vector graphics canvas is now integrated and it supports > Cairo rendering on all platforms. > - Many tools have been rewritten using Spec, a new framework for building > user interfaces. > - Versionner and Kommiter are two of the new development tools. > - RPackage, a new package mechanism got enhanced with tags and is fully > integrated in the system. > - The debugger model was rewritten to become modular, the inspector > received a bump to support multiple views, and the Nautilus code browser > supports tags, search and lot more improvements. > - Morphic has seen many cleanings and improvements and the visual theme > has been revamped. > > These are just the more prominent highlights, but the details are just as > important. We have closed 2364 issues in Pharo 3 (compared with 1727 issues > in Pharo 2). Take a moment to go through a more detailed recount of the > progress: > > > https://github.com/pharo-project/ChangeLogs/blob/master/Pharo30ChangeLogs.md > > Pharo is improving on many fronts. Just take a look at the code city of > Pharo (built with Pharo for Pharo). Every building is a class, and the red > bricks represent the modified methods in Pharo 3. > > [image: pastedGraphic_1.png] > > Many things are changing but the system gets more stable. Moving from > Pharo 2 to Pharo 3 is almost a matter of just loading the code. > > Remember that Pharo is your platform. We thank all the contributors of > this release: Jean-Baptiste Arnaud, Simon Allier, Philippe Back, ClÃ©ment > Bera, Alexandre Bergel, Torsten Bergmann, Usman Bhatti, Vincent Blondeau, > Noury Bouraqadi, Johan Brichau, Camillo Bruni, Sven Van Caekenberghe, > Damien Cassou, Nicolas Cellier, Guido Chari, Dimitris Chloupis, Bernardo > Contreras, Ben Coman, Gabriel Omar Cotelli, Jordi Delgado, Tommaso Del > Sasso, Gisela Decuzzi, Christophe Demarey, Sean DeNigris, Marcus Denker, > Martin Dias, Erwan Douaille, Stephane Ducasse, Stephan Eggermont, Pablo > Estefo, Luc Fabresse, Johan Fabry, Hilaire Fernandes, Nahuel Garbezza, Leo > Gassman, Lucas Giudice, Tudor Girba, Thierry Goubier, Norbert Hartl, Dale > Henrichs, Pablo Herrero, Nicolai Hess, Andre Hora, Alejandro Infante, > Ricardo Jacas, Henrik Sperre Johansen, Denis Kudryashov, Pavel Krivanek, > Juraj Kubelka, Laurent Laffont, Jannik Laval, Max Leske, David Lewis, Diego > Lont, Esteban Lorenzano, Stefan Marr, Mariano Martinez Peck, Roberto > Minelli, Hernan Morales Durand, Eliot Miranda, Fernando Olivero, Nicolas > Papagna Maldonado, Nick Papoylias, Nicolas Passerini, Vanessa PeÃ±a, Nicolas > Petton, Alain Plantec, Guillermo Polito, Damien Pollet, Jochen Rick, > Benjamin Van Ryseghem, Ronie Salgado, Camille Teruel, Juan Pablo Sandoval > Alcocer, Samir Saleh, Frank Shearar, Igor Stasenko, Aliaksei Syrel, > Sebastian Tleye, Yuriy Tymchuk, Andres Valloud, Martin Walk, Hernan > Wilkinson. > And many many more who contributed indirectly, by reporting bugs, > participating in discussion threads, providing feedback... > > Pharo 3.0 is the largest step we took since we started. Yet, itâs just a > step. Expect more. Much more. > > Enjoy! > The Pharo Team > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo renamed to "MuchTalk"

by Sean P. DeNigris

onierstrasz wrote > 117 emails since I checked a few hours ago? 110 of those were mine, sorry :-P Signing off for today... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-renamed-to-MuchTalk-tp4757347p4757349.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo is Smalltalkâ¦ and Not

by Sean P. DeNigris

Here's my musings about how we integrate the two motives - to acknowledge our heritage /and/ break out of our pigeon hole. My key point here is to gradually introduce the Smalltalk part after people are deep enough to have gotten excited about the ideas without dismissing them because of cultural baggage... Drilling down: 1. Sound bite: "Pharo - The immersive programming experience" 2. Why Pharo: (about a paragraph, like the one on the site now, "Pharo gives you immediate and total control over your programming experience..." 3. What is it. Here we can accurately paint the nuanced picture, distinguishing Smalltalk as an idea based on design principles vs. Smalltalk-80. If "Smalltalk" more exactly means an environment + libraries + a language (I think that order is important - the syntax was always the least interesting thing about Smalltalk). What we might really say if we had the time to go beyond an initial sound bite is: Pharo is: - a [pick 2 or 3 of: dynamic, open, immersive, live] environment (like an IDE and OS rolled into one) - beautifully designed core libraries including a web client/server, FFI, Y, Z... - a dialect of the Smalltalk programming language For #1, the inspiration is most accurately the Dynabook For #2, IMHO enough components have been rewritten to stand on it's own For #3, this is where we are most obviously a Smalltalk, and should be clear about it And in an FAQ answer any common objections people might have: Q: Is Pharo Smalltalk? A: When most people hear "Smalltalk", they think of Smalltalk-80, which Pharo is not. However, Smalltalk is really an idea... the lineage of which Pharo is a proud member Q: Can I talk to the world outside the environment? A: Yes! While the original Smalltalk was quite insulated, now you can [interact on the command line](link to unix command line examples e.g. the very Ruby-like pharo [image filename] -e "self inform: 'hello world'"), [talk to C libraries](link to native boost), etc. yada yada yada ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-is-Smalltalk-and-Not-tp4757342p4757348.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 30, 2014

Pharo renamed to "MuchTalk"

by oscar＠gmail

Holy smoley! 117 emails since I checked a few hours ago? Maybe we should rename Pharo âProlixâ? :-) on

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Sean P. DeNigris

I was reading this thread and watching... Sean arguing... that Pharo is NOT Smalltalk No!!!!!!!! As I and Esteban (at least, maybe others) have repeated, *we are NOT saying that Pharo is not Smalltalk*. Either we're not explaining ourselves well or (more likely IMHO) everyone is so emotional over this (and it's a good thing that we care that much) that they're not actually reading what we're saying. How can you read either http://forum.world.st/Pharo-is-Smalltalk-and-Not-td4757342.html or my two main points at http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756995… and say that I'm saying that?! I think there is a middle ground where everyone gets what they want. I've tried to express it in the first link above. Please - I love differences and discussion, but if you're going to react, react /specifically/ to what I said (e.g. the two points I made in the second link), because right now, you are only arguing with yourself ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4757346… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Jimmie Houchin

I understand. My apologies for contributing to one of those days. For me that day was while I was reading this thread and watching Doru and Sean arguing with Eliot. It almost made me want to go back to Squeak. Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with Squeak. They were firmly arguing that Pharo is NOT Smalltalk. They contend that making changes that make it different than Smalltalk-80 make it not Smalltalk. http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo Their contentions were not refuted. I wanted to put forth my understanding and opinion that Pharo is a Smalltalk. And then you reply stating of course everybody here knows Pharo is Smalltalk. But that is exactly what Doru is arguing against. If Pharo is going to distance itself from Smalltalk and be consistent about it, then every Pharo reference to Smalltalk in the image or website or wikipedia unless historical should be changed. This inconsistency makes Pharo look bad. Jimmie On 04/30/2014 01:58 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > Some days a I really would love not to love smalltalk... > > On 30 Apr 2014, at 20:52, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com > <mailto:jlhouchin@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> But that is the point. This kind of marketing is false. It denies who >> we are. >> >> As soon as they look at Pharo. Learn to use and then learn that Pharo >> is a Smalltalk and that we are liars. >> >> Did keeping silent about Pharo help in the Reddit thread. No. >> Did the current marketing explain well what Pharo is. No. >> Read the thread. People were confused. >> And regardless of the marketing attempt, the fact of Pharo being a >> Smalltalk did not remain suppressed. So therefore, those who were >> closed minded against Smalltalk have then been alerted, and they can >> close their minds. Attempting to not make it plain was an abject failure. >> >> People who understand the value of Smalltalk and of a modern open >> source implementation will come. >> >> >> I guess none of the commercial Smalltalks are alive? Nobody knows of >> them. They are going broke? >> >> Gemstone, VisualWorks, ... >> >> What is this new thing that people are using? >> >> Clojure based on Lisp. Not new. >> Python 23 years old. >> Lua 21 >> Ruby 19 >> >> Clojure based on Lisp but adding modern functional features disproves >> any thought that an old language with lots of baggage can't attract >> new users. >> From the Clojure home page. """Clojure is a dialect of Lisp""" >> They embrace their heritage and are better for it. They also detail >> their value proposition and being a Lisp is part of it. >> >> >> I am all agreeable to attracting people to our community. But >> falseness isn't the way. >> >> Not everybody is closed minded and ignorant. Those that are we can >> wait until they are not. >> >> But Pharo has to offer people the proper value proposition. When it >> does, I believe it will attract sincere people. When the value of >> Pharo meets the needs of the people, it will attact the appropriate >> people. But until then, we can market it however we want and they >> will not care. Right now Pharo is working hard to reach that point >> that it can offer them something they will value. For some it already >> does. For others not yet. That not yet, it a bigger obstacle than >> Pharo being marketed as a Smalltalk and telling the truth. >> >> We need to embrace being a Smalltalk and sell our value proposition >> in terms that mean something to somebody who doesn't already get >> Smalltalk. We failed at that. Too vague, too ambiguous. It confused >> some of the Reddit people. People to whom we are supposedly intending >> to attract and market to. >> >> Jimmie >> >> >> On 04/30/2014 01:22 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >>> Againâ¦ you are missing the point. >>> nobody here doubts Pharo is a Smalltalk. >>> nobody outside our small world believes Smalltalk is alive. >>> >>> And yesâ¦ you can argue all what you want. But you are scratching >>> where it does not itch. >>> >>> We choose not to *market* Pharo as a Smalltalk, because each time >>> someone outside our small world hear about Smalltalk believes that >>> is a long time dead language. No matter how much effort you put into >>> explain that is not true, people will not believe it. And people is >>> always more willing to try something new than something old (except >>> in the case of wines and fine alcohols, of course). >>> Soâ¦ we prefer to track people to our community and let them notice >>> wat WE ALL KNOW: Smalltalk is not dead, and Pharo is a proof of that. >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>> On 30 Apr 2014, at 20:07, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:jlhouchin@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> In the Smalltalk heritage. Pharo comes from Smalltalk 80. >>>> >>>> But we don't want to be stuck in 1980. We want Smalltalk 2014. >>>> Smalltalk 80 was modern for 1980. They didn't want to be stuck in >>>> 1976. ... >>>> >>>> And Smalltalk isn't unique to this. Is C11 not a C because it is >>>> not K&R, or C89, C90 or C99? >>>> Is Python 3.x not Python because it is not fully compatible with >>>> Python 2.x which is dominant? >>>> >>>> Pharo wants to be a modern Smalltalk able to empower people in this >>>> era to do things that we do in 2014. We need appropriate modularity >>>> in the image. We need the image to be clean. We need to learn the >>>> lessons we as Smalltalker's have learned in the last 24 years and >>>> apply them to Pharo Smalltalk. And I believe that is much of what >>>> Pharo is attempting to do. >>>> >>>> Noel in his talk said that Smalltalk doesn't play well with others. >>>> And with Pharo it still isn't as easy as in other languages like >>>> Python, Ruby, Lua, etc. But with NativeBoost we have a tool which >>>> enables us to do much. And NativeBoost isn't finished. I believe >>>> when NativeBoost is fully mature and the vm/image has sufficiently >>>> changed to enable us. We will have one of the best plays with >>>> others well stories. >>>> >>>> I know in the app I am writing, NativeBoost's current condition >>>> struggled with my library. It often crashed. This library has to >>>> deal with a C Thread. Which is why I am spending my current time >>>> studying C. >>>> >>>> Whether or not the Smalltalk Inspired crowd likes it, the moment >>>> some else declares that Pharo is a Smalltalk the Smalltalk Inspired >>>> marketing is tanked. The cat is out of the bag. >>>> >>>> The Reddit thread demonstrates this. People went to the new >>>> website. They read the current marketing and were confused. What is >>>> this Pharo thing. And in the thread it comes out that Pharo is a >>>> Smalltalk. Lets make that clear up front. Then lets define what it >>>> means to be Pharo Smalltalk. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> reshaping itself since its conception (several years ago when it >>>> forked from Squeak). >>>> It doesn't want to have any backward or "historic" compatibility >>>> with other 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 meant. And yes I understand that English is not his native >>>> language, and there are many for whom it is, who still use it >>>> poorly. 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 >>>> based Smalltalks. 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. >>>> >>>> Smalltalk has a wonderful heritage. It is not without its issues. >>>> However the good of Smalltalk is enormous. Take a look at this chart >>>> http://exploringdata.github.io/vis/programming-languages-influence-network/ >>>> Smalltalk is a big influence in the history of programming. This is >>>> something worth being a part of. Be proud of it. >>>> >>>> Pharo needs to define what one vision of a modern Smalltalk is. Let >>>> us educate people of what our vision for Pharo Smalltalk is. And >>>> guess what folks its 2014. Before long it wont be. And before long >>>> the vision of Pharo 2014 will no longer be any more modern than >>>> Smalltalk 80. But neither Smalltalk 80 nor Pharo 3.0 constrain what >>>> it means to be Smalltalk. Smalltalk inspires vision and inspires >>>> people to do things which change the present and the future. Lets >>>> build on that heritage and take it forward. What does a modern >>>> Smalltalk snapshot 2014 mean. Lets educate and communicate. Others >>>> (non-Smalltalkers) don't get to define what Smalltalk is. We do. >>>> >>>> Let us learn from them what they think Smalltalk is. Where they are >>>> wrong, educate them. Where they are right and we have an issue. >>>> Let's learn a lesson and improve our Smalltalk. >>>> >>>> Computer science/art is young. This is a journey. Lets make it a >>>> good one. >>>> >>>> Jimmie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04/30/2014 11:12 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: >>>>> Pharo := Smalltalk ++ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin >>>>> <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com <mailto:jlhouchin@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/28/2014 11:12 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> â¦ more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: >>>>> >>>>> MountainWest RubyConf 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalkâ >>>>> >>>>> 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. Weâll show you how to >>>>> get started on Smalltalk, and walk through some sample >>>>> code. Live coding may be involved. Youâll never look at >>>>> objects the same way again. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-small… >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In this thread and many others there is this debate as to >>>>> whether Pharo is a Smalltalk or is Smalltalk Inspired. >>>>> >>>>> I find the Smalltalk Inspired arguments to be unpersuasive. To >>>>> be Smalltalk Inspired is to say that you are not a Smalltalk. >>>>> It is to say that Pharo is not Smalltalk but inspired by it. >>>>> >>>>> I find that reasoning patently false. >>>>> >>>>> First of all everything in Pharo begins from a Smalltalk >>>>> image. It comes from Squeak Smalltalk which comes from Apple >>>>> Smalltalk. etc. >>>>> >>>>> Pharo has an isA relationship with Smalltalk, not an >>>>> isInspiredBy relationship. It may change and add features, but >>>>> as has been stated before, Smalltalk isn't a static idea or >>>>> artifact. It has always been a dynamic live environment in >>>>> which to change itself into something it believed to be >>>>> better. By removing features and by growing them. >>>>> >>>>> Smalltalk (an instance of SmalltalkImage), SmalltalkImage, >>>>> SmalltalkImageTest, SmalltalkEditingState are all part of the >>>>> Pharo Smalltalk image. >>>>> >>>>> The Pharo image is a Smalltalk image. It says so inside the >>>>> image itself. >>>>> >>>>> Where are we hosting are source code? Would that be SmalltalkHub? >>>>> Lets see something. >>>>> http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo >>>>> <http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#%21/%7EPharo> >>>>> >>>>> Okay, Pharo might be doing things that would break >>>>> compatibility with other Smalltalks. And that causes some >>>>> people pain and grief. However that does not make Pharo not a >>>>> Smalltalk. Was Smalltalk 76 constrained by backward >>>>> compatibility with Smalltalk 72? Or Smalltalk 80 with either >>>>> Smalltalk 76 or 72? No! >>>>> >>>>> Is it a requirement of Pharo to be constrained by other >>>>> Smalltalk implementations in order to still be a Smalltalk. No! >>>>> >>>>> And then there is the argument of the outside worlds >>>>> perception of Smalltalk. Since when does the perception of the >>>>> outside world change whether or not Pharo is a Smalltalk? If >>>>> the outside world changed their mind and decided Smalltalk is >>>>> wonderful, does Pharo then all of the sudden become a >>>>> Smalltalk? Ugh! >>>>> >>>>> We are who we are. Our roots are our roots. Pharo should be >>>>> happy and proud to be a Smalltalk. A Smalltalk that is >>>>> continuing the heritage of innovation. A Smalltalk that is >>>>> continuing the heritage of inventing the future. >>>>> >>>>> We have decided to be marketing driven. Marketing is >>>>> important. But marketing should determine who we are. And we >>>>> should engage in disingenuous marketing practice trying to >>>>> hide our roots or who we are. >>>>> >>>>> Why do we things distancing ourselves from Smalltalk >>>>> advantages us? Just because there are lots of uneducated >>>>> people who have the wrong idea about Smalltalk. Clojure >>>>> embraced its Lisp heritage and is thriving. Lisp has every bit >>>>> as much baggage. >>>>> >>>>> This talk which inspired this thread called Pharo as >>>>> Smalltalk. He said, Pharo Smalltalk throughout the >>>>> presentation. So in the mind of the presenter and now in the >>>>> mind of the audience at the conference and of the video, Pharo >>>>> is a Smalltalk. So now are we to go about re-educating all >>>>> these people that Pharo is not a Smalltalk but is rather >>>>> Smalltalk Inspired? >>>>> >>>>> We don't require the outside world's permission. We don't need >>>>> their approval. We would like to have a reasonable and >>>>> sufficient number of them to catch the Pharo Smalltalk vision >>>>> and become a part of the family. Do we really desire >>>>> everybody. No. Do we desire those people who are so closed >>>>> minded that the mention of Smalltalk closes their mind because >>>>> of their ignorance. I don't think so. >>>>> >>>>> Smalltalk is different. Pharo is Smalltalk and is different. >>>>> There will be those who don't like it because of the baggage >>>>> they bring, not the baggage we bring. And that is okay. All of >>>>> us think different. People need to embrace what empowers them >>>>> and quit complaining about what empowers somebody else. We >>>>> need to embrace empowering people who understand Smalltalk not >>>>> the people who don't get it for whatever reason. Let those >>>>> people go and be empowered somewhere else. We and they will >>>>> both be better off. >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to shred and destroy my arguments. I am proud to use >>>>> Smalltalk. And currently Pharo is the Smalltalk I am choosing >>>>> to use. Currently I am studying C. A C library is required for >>>>> my project and in order to use Pharo and use this library, I >>>>> need sufficient C skills. >>>>> >>>>> My opinion unapologetically. >>>>> >>>>> And if the powers that be who are in charge of Pharo decide >>>>> that Smalltalk (in name) is baggage and Pharo is not >>>>> Smalltalk. And that marketing Pharo as Smalltalk is bad. Then >>>>> please be honest and change all references in the image of >>>>> Smalltalk to Pharo. Also change SmalltalkHub to PharoHub or >>>>> SmalltalkInspiredHub. >>>>> >>>>> If if not, be sincere and embrace Pharo Smalltalk. >>>>> >>>>> Long live Smalltalk. >>>>> >>>>> Jimmie >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] New Website online

by Tudor Girba

Excellent work! Thank you: Nico, Esteban, Marcus! Doru On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>wrote: > yeah, and donât forget Nicoâs effort :) > I put him real pressure on him last 3 weeks, and he took it without > complainâ¦ and he did a great work :) > > Esteban > > On 30 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > > > Marcus Denker-4 wrote > >> The new website is online! > > > > Wow! Instantly obvious that Aurelia was involved because it has that > "well > > designed" look instead of our usual "I'm an engineer trying my best" > look, > > lol ;-P > > > > > > > > ----- > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/New-Website-online-tp4757241p4757250.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] good article on mainstream adoption of programming languages

by kilon alios

I am sorry but again a big NO from me. I am interested in two field, Graphics (2D and 3D) and music/audio synthesis. Both of these fields are dominated by C/C++. You could say is because of the fact that C/C++ is heavily optimised and of course I would agree but its not that of a big reason because a) other languages can use C/C++ libs b) its possible to compile a language to C/C++. For example python has cython , similar to Slang for Pharo. Take your language of choice outputs optimised C/C++ that can get compiled and linked back to your favorite language as a library. Still the vast majority of coders code in C/C++ for these two fields. Why ? Simple, libraries, tons of them. There is no way anyone would port all of these libraries to Python let alone Pharo. Its not hard to use those libraries from Python but people dont do it , its just more effort, and because its simple just to do it on the language the lib is documented. This is why also language popularity is highly heated discussion, popularity highly fluctuates. For example you go web dev Javascript is king, you leave web dev Javascript becomes practically unknown. Enterprise ? Java is the undisputed king. Windows development ? .NET and C++ hands down. How about iOS ? Objective C without a doubt. Android ? Java again. Unix/Linux ? of course C/C++ and so on so forth. You could even say that languages prosper more when they pick a niche and again the reason why that happens is because of course of libraries. Afterall the language itself is rarely non general purpose. Its the libraries that give the specialisation to the language. On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Johan Brichau <johan(a)inceptive.be> wrote: > > > Yet it worked like a charm because developers loved the fact that they > had in their hand a huge monolithic platform that could satisfy their > wildest dream as far as library support went through. And on top that > platform was cross platform. > > Sounds like Smalltalk :-) > > Don't get me wrong: a language without libraries is like an OS without > applications, but the point is that most of the unpopular languages have > sufficient libraries. After doing Smalltalk for over 15 years, I still > discover things inside the libraries that come with a standard image. > > And yes, some libraries will attract people: office libraries in .net, RoR > in Ruby, etc... > > I think once sufficient libraries are present, an active community is more > important (in the absence of large company backing) and libraries are a > consequence. > > But hey, we should probably go have a beer over this ;-) > > Johan >

April 30, 2014

Pharo is Smalltalkâ¦ and Not

by Sean P. DeNigris

All of the arguments why Pharo is Smalltalk are correct. Let me tell you a story... My friends and I are planning a trip to Spain. I am explaining that in Spanish, "yo" - which means "hi" in English slang - means "l". They are arguing passionately that "yo" means "hi" and presenting evidence upon evidence to prove it. Then I snap back that, no, "yo" definitely means "I". Ridiculous, right? Sounds kind of like a Monty Python skit. Well, Pharo is planning a trip to the programming world of non-Smalltalkers. I am explaining that in Ruby, "Smalltalk" - which means "a language with a development environment written in itself which both were designed to continually evolve*" in the Smalltalk community - means "Smalltalk-80". My friends are arguing passionately that "Smalltalk" means the former and presenting evidence upon evidence to prove it. Both of these disagreements fail to take into account that truth is contextual and language imprecise. So please, please, please, please, please, no more theses on why Pharo is Smalltalk, or why it's not. It's neither, and both, and more! We're talking about effectively marketing to non-Smalltalkers, and our theory (only time will tell) is: for our first initial sound bite, Smalltalk-inspired (or silent about Smalltalk, which I think may be even better) will be more intention revealing to the target audience than Smalltalk. Either way, we're going to have to do some more explaining if they're interested in hearing more. But with the first, maybe, they will be interested in hearing more before being turned off by a preconceived (and incomplete) notion of what "Smalltalk" is. But there is a valid question here of how to manage the inevitable misunderstandings... I'll posted some ideas for that in a bit... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-is-Smalltalk-and-Not-tp4757342.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 30, 2014