- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Bloc] BlShapeResizing -> BlShapeResizer

by stepharo

Hi blockers I would like to rename BlShapeResizing into BlShapeResizer Object subclass: #BlShapeResizing instanceVariableNames: '' classVariableNames: '' package: 'Bloc-Core-!Core-Path' I hope this is ok for you. Stef

March 6, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Jimmie Houchin

On 03/05/2016 08:33 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: > Jimmie, > >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/05/2016 12:57 PM, Ben Coman wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Stef, >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >>>>>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>>>>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>>>>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>>>>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >>>>>> Seriously. >>>>>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >>>>>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >>>>>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >>>>>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>>>>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>>>>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >>>>>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >>>>>> promote smalltalk. >>>>> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >>>>> >>>>> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. >>>> Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. >>>> >>>> If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). >>>> >>>> We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. >>>> >>>> Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: >>>> >>>> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo >>>> >>>> But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. >>> The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, >>> -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So >>> Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and >>> be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, >>> Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". >>> >>> As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk >>> (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the >>> interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk >>> stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might >>> want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe >>> was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the >>> fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone >>> who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its >>> *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", >>> *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that >>> can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" >>> is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi >>> communities.) >>> >>> cheers -ben >> I have had this argument also from the pro-Smalltalk side of things. What persuaded me to be more liberal and permissive in the argument pro-Pharo is simply this. All of the Smalltalks above were done be the creators of Smalltalk. They had ownership and rights to the name Smalltalk and the directions it had the freedom to pursue. The creators of Pharo do not have such ownership to the Smalltalk history, heritage or name. Do they have the rights to say that the direction they take Pharo is the direction of Smalltalk? What if Squeak diverges in a different direction? Who is to say which is the standard bearer for the name of Smalltalk. >> >> Caution says no. Pharo doesn't have that right. The creators of Smalltalk did not hand off the stewardship of Smalltalk to Pharo. I am happy to be proven that Pharo has legitimate rights to carry on the name of Smalltalk in the directions it goes, regardless of what they may be. > AFAIA no one has trademarked Smalltalk, only Smalltalk-80. > > The situation seems to me analogous to programming languages being likened to vehicles, the dynamic languages to flying vehicles, Smalltalk to jet plane and Pharo to an Airbus 380. There is no way anyone is going to prevent someone calling a jet plane a jet plane. No one other than Airbus can call a plant they produce an Airbus. It dies not make sense to say an Airbus 380 is not a jet plane. I personally am okay with that understanding. As I said, I am pro-Smalltalk. I would be thrilled with Pharo associating itself with Smalltalk as a Smalltalk. I like Smalltalk. :) I am proud of the Smalltalk heritage and ancestry. However, like with Smalltalk. I do not have a say with Pharo either. :) Shalom. Jimmie

March 6, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Eliot Miranda

Jimmie, >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 03/05/2016 12:57 PM, Ben Coman wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stef, >>>> >>>>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >>>>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>>>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>>>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>>>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>>>> >>>>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >>>>> Seriously. >>>>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >>>>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >>>>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >>>>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>>>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>>>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >>>>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >>>>> promote smalltalk. >>>> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? >>>> >>>> >>>> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >>>> >>>> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. >>> Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. >>> >>> If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). >>> >>> We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. >>> >>> Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: >>> >>> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo >>> >>> But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. >> >> The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, >> -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So >> Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and >> be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, >> Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". >> >> As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk >> (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the >> interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk >> stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might >> want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe >> was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the >> fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone >> who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its >> *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", >> *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that >> can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" >> is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi >> communities.) >> >> cheers -ben > > I have had this argument also from the pro-Smalltalk side of things. What persuaded me to be more liberal and permissive in the argument pro-Pharo is simply this. All of the Smalltalks above were done be the creators of Smalltalk. They had ownership and rights to the name Smalltalk and the directions it had the freedom to pursue. The creators of Pharo do not have such ownership to the Smalltalk history, heritage or name. Do they have the rights to say that the direction they take Pharo is the direction of Smalltalk? What if Squeak diverges in a different direction? Who is to say which is the standard bearer for the name of Smalltalk. > > Caution says no. Pharo doesn't have that right. The creators of Smalltalk did not hand off the stewardship of Smalltalk to Pharo. I am happy to be proven that Pharo has legitimate rights to carry on the name of Smalltalk in the directions it goes, regardless of what they may be. AFAIA no one has trademarked Smalltalk, only Smalltalk-80. The situation seems to me analogous to programming languages being likened to vehicles, the dynamic languages to flying vehicles, Smalltalk to jet plane and Pharo to an Airbus 380. There is no way anyone is going to prevent someone calling a jet plane a jet plane. No one other than Airbus can call a plant they produce an Airbus. It dies not make sense to say an Airbus 380 is not a jet plane. > Just one opinion of someone who is both pro-Smalltalk and pro-Pharo. And strongly understands words have meaning. > > Shalom. > > Jimmie > > >

March 6, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Eliot Miranda

Sven, > On Mar 5, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > >> On 05 Mar 2016, at 19:57, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stef, >>>> >>>>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >>>>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>>>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>>>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>>>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>>>> >>>>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >>>>> Seriously. >>>>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >>>>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >>>>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >>>>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>>>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>>>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >>>>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >>>>> promote smalltalk. >>>> >>>> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? >>>> >>>> >>>> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >>>> >>>> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. >>> >>> Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. >>> >>> If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). >>> >>> We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. >>> >>> Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: >>> >>> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo >>> >>> But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. >> >> >> The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, >> -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So >> Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and >> be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, >> Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". >> >> As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk >> (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the >> interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk >> stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might >> want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe >> was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the >> fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone >> who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its >> *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", >> *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that >> can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" >> is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi >> communities.) >> >> cheers -ben > > Really, Ben, are you suggesting we stop calling it Pharo ? That's not at all what I read Ben as suggesting. See below... > > Come on, let's be serious. > > (BTW, this thread started with a discussion about the naming of an external library, which is entirely up to the main developers driving that library, not us). > > What makes Pharo different is this: you (and so many others) came to this community as a stranger (for us), started contributing in various ways, we saw that you were serious/good and we accepted your work, letting you work on very fundamental code that had the potential to break everything. There is simply no way that you could have done or be allowed to do that in any other Smalltalk, let alone the place where we forked from. It is as simple as that. That is why it is called Pharo, why we say Pharo is yours. Look at your language (with which I am happy). "There is simply no way that you could have done or be allowed to do that in any other Smalltalk...". That implies Pharo is a Smalltalk but it is its own version. That's /not/ what "Smalltalk-inspired" means at all. When one tries to say Pharo is not a Smalltalk, then I have an issue. No one is saying that Pharo is not unique or saying anything pejorative. All we're saying is that Pharo is a Smalltalk. > >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> Le 5/3/16 02:18, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SciPharo? Not so great news from my POV. >>>>>>> What is so much pharo specific in this library? >>>>>>> Is Smalltalk scientific community large enough for yet another split? >>>>>> Split of what? Let us be tagged with a name of 1980 and die in peace. Yes this looks like a >>>>>> smart move. >>>>>> There are just Python and R and Javascript around (not talking about ruby and swift) >>>>>> so this is a great move. We are not the cobol of object-oriented programming!! >>>>>> >>>>>> When I read sentiments like this it makes me want to leave the community. I find it so offensive that the Pharo community uses Smalltalk but wants to distance itself. It feels like theft or massive disrespect for the inventors of the language, or a complete lack of gratitude. >>>>>> >>>>>> C is older than Smalltalk and no one says "C is the cobol of low-level imperative languages". List is much older than C but no one wants to rename Lisp because it is perceived as old. >>>>>> >>>>>> Smalltalk is a beautiful name, carefully chosen to differentiate and identify the system as different, not arrogant, not hieroglyphic. Further, Smalltalkl /is/ different and distinctive materially. Why anyone would be ashamed of that incredible heritage and pervasive influence is beyond me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Offended, >>>>>> Eliot > >

March 6, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Jimmie Houchin

On 03/05/2016 12:57 PM, Ben Coman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Stef, >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >>>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>>> >>>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >>>> Seriously. >>>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >>>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >>>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >>>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >>>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >>>> promote smalltalk. >>> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? >>> >>> >>> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >>> >>> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. >> Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. >> >> If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). >> >> We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. >> >> Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: >> >> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo >> >> But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. > > The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, > -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So > Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and > be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, > Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". > > As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk > (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the > interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk > stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might > want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe > was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the > fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone > who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its > *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", > *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that > can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" > is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi > communities.) > > cheers -ben I have had this argument also from the pro-Smalltalk side of things. What persuaded me to be more liberal and permissive in the argument pro-Pharo is simply this. All of the Smalltalks above were done be the creators of Smalltalk. They had ownership and rights to the name Smalltalk and the directions it had the freedom to pursue. The creators of Pharo do not have such ownership to the Smalltalk history, heritage or name. Do they have the rights to say that the direction they take Pharo is the direction of Smalltalk? What if Squeak diverges in a different direction? Who is to say which is the standard bearer for the name of Smalltalk. Caution says no. Pharo doesn't have that right. The creators of Smalltalk did not hand off the stewardship of Smalltalk to Pharo. I am happy to be proven that Pharo has legitimate rights to carry on the name of Smalltalk in the directions it goes, regardless of what they may be. Just one opinion of someone who is both pro-Smalltalk and pro-Pharo. And strongly understands words have meaning. Shalom. Jimmie

March 6, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Serge Stinckwich

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> On 05 Mar 2016, at 19:57, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stef, >>>> >>>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >>>>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>>>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>>>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>>>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>>>> >>>>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >>>>> Seriously. >>>>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >>>>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >>>>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >>>>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>>>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>>>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >>>>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >>>>> promote smalltalk. >>>> >>>> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? >>>> >>>> >>>> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >>>> >>>> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. >>> >>> Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. >>> >>> If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). >>> >>> We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. >>> >>> Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: >>> >>> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo >>> >>> But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. >> >> >> The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, >> -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So >> Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and >> be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, >> Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". >> >> As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk >> (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the >> interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk >> stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might >> want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe >> was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the >> fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone >> who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its >> *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", >> *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that >> can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" >> is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi >> communities.) >> >> cheers -ben > > Really, Ben, are you suggesting we stop calling it Pharo ? > > Come on, let's be serious. > > (BTW, this thread started with a discussion about the naming of an external library, which is entirely up to the main developers driving that library, not us). Yes you are right, sorry for the noise. Let's move this thread outside pharo-dev. -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

March 5, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 05 Mar 2016, at 19:57, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >>> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Stef, >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >>>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>>> >>>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >>>> Seriously. >>>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >>>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >>>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >>>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >>>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >>>> promote smalltalk. >>> >>> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? >>> >>> >>> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >>> >>> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. >> >> Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. >> >> If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). >> >> We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. >> >> Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: >> >> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo >> >> But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. > > > The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, > -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So > Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and > be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, > Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". > > As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk > (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the > interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk > stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might > want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe > was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the > fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone > who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its > *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", > *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that > can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" > is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi > communities.) > > cheers -ben Really, Ben, are you suggesting we stop calling it Pharo ? Come on, let's be serious. (BTW, this thread started with a discussion about the naming of an external library, which is entirely up to the main developers driving that library, not us). What makes Pharo different is this: you (and so many others) came to this community as a stranger (for us), started contributing in various ways, we saw that you were serious/good and we accepted your work, letting you work on very fundamental code that had the potential to break everything. There is simply no way that you could have done or be allowed to do that in any other Smalltalk, let alone the place where we forked from. It is as simple as that. That is why it is called Pharo, why we say Pharo is yours. >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> Le 5/3/16 02:18, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> SciPharo? Not so great news from my POV. >>>>>> What is so much pharo specific in this library? >>>>>> Is Smalltalk scientific community large enough for yet another split? >>>>> Split of what? Let us be tagged with a name of 1980 and die in peace. Yes this looks like a >>>>> smart move. >>>>> There are just Python and R and Javascript around (not talking about ruby and swift) >>>>> so this is a great move. We are not the cobol of object-oriented programming!! >>>>> >>>>> When I read sentiments like this it makes me want to leave the community. I find it so offensive that the Pharo community uses Smalltalk but wants to distance itself. It feels like theft or massive disrespect for the inventors of the language, or a complete lack of gratitude. >>>>> >>>>> C is older than Smalltalk and no one says "C is the cobol of low-level imperative languages". List is much older than C but no one wants to rename Lisp because it is perceived as old. >>>>> >>>>> Smalltalk is a beautiful name, carefully chosen to differentiate and identify the system as different, not arrogant, not hieroglyphic. Further, Smalltalkl /is/ different and distinctive materially. Why anyone would be ashamed of that incredible heritage and pervasive influence is beyond me. >>>>> >>>>> Offended, >>>>> Eliot

March 5, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Laszlo Zsolt Kiss

Hello. NumSt is good name, maybe âº Best regards Laszlo Zsolt 2016.03.05. 16:34 ezt Ãrta ("Serge Stinckwich" <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com >): > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Serge Stinckwich > > <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Nicolas Cellier > >> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> 2016-03-04 19:51 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>: > >>>> > >>>> I personally never liked the name âSciSmalltalkâ. âSciPharoâ is much > >>>> better in my opinion > >>>> PhaNum is also okay to me. > >>>> > >>> > >>> SciSmalltalk is ugly. > >> > >> I don't like the name either. We will find a better sexy name ! > > > > Just a random line of thought... > > PhaNum --> NumPha --> numcha --> numchi > > --> numqi "An energy around numbers" > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi > > Nice ! > > Any other ideas ? > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > >

March 5, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Ben Coman

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Stef, >> >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>> >>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >>> Seriously. >>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >>> promote smalltalk. >> >> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? >> >> >> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >> >> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. > > Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. > > If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). > > We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. > > Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: > > http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo > > But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi communities.) cheers -ben > >>> Stef >>> >>> Le 5/3/16 02:18, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>>> SciPharo? Not so great news from my POV. >>>>> What is so much pharo specific in this library? >>>>> Is Smalltalk scientific community large enough for yet another split? >>>> Split of what? Let us be tagged with a name of 1980 and die in peace. Yes this looks like a >>>> smart move. >>>> There are just Python and R and Javascript around (not talking about ruby and swift) >>>> so this is a great move. We are not the cobol of object-oriented programming!! >>>> >>>> When I read sentiments like this it makes me want to leave the community. I find it so offensive that the Pharo community uses Smalltalk but wants to distance itself. It feels like theft or massive disrespect for the inventors of the language, or a complete lack of gratitude. >>>> >>>> C is older than Smalltalk and no one says "C is the cobol of low-level imperative languages". List is much older than C but no one wants to rename Lisp because it is perceived as old. >>>> >>>> Smalltalk is a beautiful name, carefully chosen to differentiate and identify the system as different, not arrogant, not hieroglyphic. Further, Smalltalkl /is/ different and distinctive materially. Why anyone would be ashamed of that incredible heritage and pervasive influence is beyond me. >>>> >>>> Offended, >>>> Eliot > >

March 5, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call about Numerical Methods in Pharo :)

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Stef, > > On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > >> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the same. >> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >> python, java, c#, lua, ... >> >> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our language and do node.js. >> Seriously. >> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can tell you. >> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a good opportunity. >> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility of our system >> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >> Afterall I may be wrong. >> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay with old friends >> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole that does not want to >> promote smalltalk. > > I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived negatively? > > > I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. > > And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like factually correct (it is BTW). We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not without reason. Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. >> Stef >> >> Le 5/3/16 02:18, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> SciPharo? Not so great news from my POV. >>>> What is so much pharo specific in this library? >>>> Is Smalltalk scientific community large enough for yet another split? >>> Split of what? Let us be tagged with a name of 1980 and die in peace. Yes this looks like a >>> smart move. >>> There are just Python and R and Javascript around (not talking about ruby and swift) >>> so this is a great move. We are not the cobol of object-oriented programming!! >>> >>> When I read sentiments like this it makes me want to leave the community. I find it so offensive that the Pharo community uses Smalltalk but wants to distance itself. It feels like theft or massive disrespect for the inventors of the language, or a complete lack of gratitude. >>> >>> C is older than Smalltalk and no one says "C is the cobol of low-level imperative languages". List is much older than C but no one wants to rename Lisp because it is perceived as old. >>> >>> Smalltalk is a beautiful name, carefully chosen to differentiate and identify the system as different, not arrogant, not hieroglyphic. Further, Smalltalkl /is/ different and distinctive materially. Why anyone would be ashamed of that incredible heritage and pervasive influence is beyond me. >>> >>> Offended, >>> Eliot

March 5, 2016