- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

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

by Esteban A. Maringolo

2014-05-15 17:26 GMT-03:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > On 15 May 2014, at 22:13, kmo <voxkmp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, this is all about marketing. But I think being smalltalk is a marketing >> plus. It was for me. Who are these people who will run a mile at the mention >> of smalltalk? And if they hate smalltalk so much, are they not going to be >> disappointed when they find out that pharo is just another version of the >> dead language they have always shunned? > > Let's say that the people who know Smalltalk will come anyway, > because they understand the lineage. > There is no real point in preaching to those who are already converted. All the previous dialects were advertised as "a new Smalltalk dialect" (from IBM, Cincom, you name it). This time we could, at least, try to advertise it differently. > You would be surprised how little young people know about older languages and technologies, there is a reason why everything is being reinvented all the time ;-) I'm not surprised about that, I'm scared. Esteban A. Maringolo

May 15, 2014

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

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 15 May 2014, at 22:13, kmo <voxkmp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, this is all about marketing. But I think being smalltalk is a marketing > plus. It was for me. Who are these people who will run a mile at the mention > of smalltalk? And if they hate smalltalk so much, are they not going to be > disappointed when they find out that pharo is just another version of the > dead language they have always shunned? Let's say that the people who know Smalltalk will come anyway, because they understand the lineage. There is no real point in preaching to those who are already converted. You would be surprised how little young people know about older languages and technologies, there is a reason why everything is being reinvented all the time ;-)

May 15, 2014

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

by kmo

Yes, this is all about marketing. But I think being smalltalk is a marketing plus. It was for me. Who are these people who will run a mile at the mention of smalltalk? And if they hate smalltalk so much, are they not going to be disappointed when they find out that pharo is just another version of the dead language they have always shunned? -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4759218… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

May 15, 2014

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

by Sergi Reyner

"Pharo is a Smalltalk for the 21st century." - Sergi Reyner. Cheers, Sergi

May 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] One complaint about Pharo

by Esteban A. Maringolo

2014-05-15 16:57 GMT-03:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: > That single screen has its advantages. It's a very cosy place to be :-) +1 Plus... unless we got independent process/queues per window (like Smalltalk/X [1]) I don't see the advantage from the development standpoint. Regards, [1] In St/X you can kill a window without killing the whole image. Pretty useful if you mess up something :)

May 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] One complaint about Pharo

by Eliot Miranda

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:21 AM, David Astels <dastels(a)icloud.com> wrote: > One of the big issues I have with Pharo is that Iâm stuck on a single > screen, unlike Cincom Smalltalk that uses separate OS windows that I can > spread over multiple screens. Iâm assuming this is a hard limit in OSX, but > itâs a bit annoying. Yes, Self has the same issue, and itâs just as > annoying. > Vassili Bykov did native host windows for Windows above Squeak and the Squeak VM in Newspeak. This code could be ported. There was a scheme called "native windows" in Welsh (something "Ffenestri" IIRC) that apparently worked. Esteban Lorenzano has looked at native windows in Pharo and (I think) got something working, right Esteban? There's nothing intrinsic that says native windows can't be done. It's just more maintennance work, and I guess the pressure is not intense enough to bring it about. That single screen has its advantages. It's a very cosy place to be :-) Dave -- best, Eliot

May 15, 2014

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

by David Astels

Yes, but Clojure being a Lisp is why I use it. Same as Pharo being a Smalltalk is why I use it. They are both evolutions, and looking at them there is no way not to immediately see what they are. On May 15, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 15 May 2014, at 20:18, David Astels <dastels(a)icloud.com> wrote: > >> I agree whole heartedly. Ditch âagileâ a tool/language canât be agile anywayâ¦ agile is a characteristic of a team, their process, and their dynamic. And itâs generally meaningless now. >> >> Also, Pharo IS a Smalltalk. Thatâs the biggest thing that makes it interesting. Saying Pharo isnât Smalltalk is like saying Clojure isnât Lisp. In Clojureâs case, itâs further from classic Lisp than Pharo is from Smalltalk-80. >> >> Dave > > Copied today from http://clojure.org : > > << > Clojure is a dynamic programming language that targets the Java Virtual Machine (and the CLR, and JavaScript). It is designed to be a general-purpose language, combining the approachability and interactive development of a scripting language with an efficient and robust infrastructure for multithreaded programming. Clojure is a compiled language - it compiles directly to JVM bytecode, yet remains completely dynamic. Every feature supported by Clojure is supported at runtime. Clojure provides easy access to the Java frameworks, with optional type hints and type inference, to ensure that calls to Java can avoid reflection. > > Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, and shares with Lisp the code-as-data philosophy and a powerful macro system. Clojure is predominantly a functional programming language, and features a rich set of immutable, persistent data structures. When mutable state is needed, Clojure offers a software transactional memory system and reactive Agent system that ensure clean, correct, multithreaded designs. > > I hope you find Clojure's combination of facilities elegant, powerful, practical and fun to use. >>> > > Lisp is _not_ mentioned in the first paragraph, and only once (ok twice, but in the same sentence) in the second. > > This is all about marketing, not about denying something. Yes, the goal is not to scare people away or to start with potentially limiting or worse negative connotations. > >> On May 15, 2014, at 1:02 PM, kmo <voxkmp(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Looking at the new pharo website (itâs great, by the way), I found I was more >>> upset than I thought I would be by the total absence of the s-word. >>> >>> Perhaps lots of people think smalltalk is a dead language but thatâs not the >>> only view of smalltalk that people have out there. >>> >>> I came to pharo looking for a new, better way of developing applications. I >>> knew from reading about the history of computing that smalltalk was the >>> purest object oriented language. I knew that it had pioneered many advanced >>> ideas in program development. I knew that it was so far ahead of its time >>> that other languages were still hobbling along behind it trying to catch up. >>> I knew that java and C# were constantly trying to be more smalltalk-like. So >>> I looked for a smalltalk â ideally an open source smalltalk that I could use >>> on Linux. And so I came to pharo. If someone had told me that pharo was not >>> smalltalk, I would not have been interested, I would have though pharo was >>> just a niche product (like Rebol, say) - something that might simply fade >>> away with no history behind it. And Iâm sure there are other people like me >>> out there who also have heard of the smalltalk mystique. This heritage is >>> something to be proud of. >>> >>> So why hide what pharo is? >>> >>> Itâs not smalltalkâs reputation as /dead/ that I think is likely to put >>> people off. Itâs more smalltalksâs reputation as an academicâs language, >>> used to investigate abstruse computer science problems, but unsuitable for >>> mundane day-to-day development. The sort of language that cannot produce a >>> stand-alone executable (a myth - but pharo could do with a deployment wizard >>> of some kind). The sort of language that can produce incredible data >>> visualisations (Roassal) but is unable to put up a decent data entry screen >>> (Spec). (Sorry, that's unfair but I could not resist it! ) >>> >>> Rather than hide the smalltalk origins of pharo, I think they should be >>> shouted from the rooftops. I would add something like this to the web page. >>> >>> */Pharo is an alive-and-kicking, developer-focused, version of smalltalk â >>> the most beautiful idea in the history of computing./* >>> >>> Just my two cents. >>> >>> By the way, I really don't like the idea of using /agile /as a description >>> of pharo. Agile means almost nothing now - it's just a management buzzword >>> for nothing in particular. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4759204… >>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> > >

May 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] One complaint about Pharo

by Laurent Laffont

Hi, I remember the Mars project (see http://marsonpharo.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/mars-widgets-and-layouts-exampl… ) but don't know the current status... Laurent Le jeudi 15 mai 2014, 13:21:25 David Astels a Ã©crit : > One of the big issues I have with Pharo is that Iâm stuck on a single screen, unlike Cincom Smalltalk that uses separate OS windows that I can spread over multiple screens. Iâm assuming this is a hard limit in OSX, but itâs a bit annoying. Yes, Self has the same issue, and itâs just as annoying. > > Dave > > -------- [1] http://marsonpharo.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/mars-widgets-and-layouts-exampl…

May 15, 2014

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

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 15 May 2014, at 20:18, David Astels <dastels(a)icloud.com> wrote: > I agree whole heartedly. Ditch âagileâ a tool/language canât be agile anywayâ¦ agile is a characteristic of a team, their process, and their dynamic. And itâs generally meaningless now. > > Also, Pharo IS a Smalltalk. Thatâs the biggest thing that makes it interesting. Saying Pharo isnât Smalltalk is like saying Clojure isnât Lisp. In Clojureâs case, itâs further from classic Lisp than Pharo is from Smalltalk-80. > > Dave Copied today from http://clojure.org : << Clojure is a dynamic programming language that targets the Java Virtual Machine (and the CLR, and JavaScript). It is designed to be a general-purpose language, combining the approachability and interactive development of a scripting language with an efficient and robust infrastructure for multithreaded programming. Clojure is a compiled language - it compiles directly to JVM bytecode, yet remains completely dynamic. Every feature supported by Clojure is supported at runtime. Clojure provides easy access to the Java frameworks, with optional type hints and type inference, to ensure that calls to Java can avoid reflection. Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, and shares with Lisp the code-as-data philosophy and a powerful macro system. Clojure is predominantly a functional programming language, and features a rich set of immutable, persistent data structures. When mutable state is needed, Clojure offers a software transactional memory system and reactive Agent system that ensure clean, correct, multithreaded designs. I hope you find Clojure's combination of facilities elegant, powerful, practical and fun to use. >> Lisp is _not_ mentioned in the first paragraph, and only once (ok twice, but in the same sentence) in the second. This is all about marketing, not about denying something. Yes, the goal is not to scare people away or to start with potentially limiting or worse negative connotations. > On May 15, 2014, at 1:02 PM, kmo <voxkmp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Looking at the new pharo website (itâs great, by the way), I found I was more >> upset than I thought I would be by the total absence of the s-word. >> >> Perhaps lots of people think smalltalk is a dead language but thatâs not the >> only view of smalltalk that people have out there. >> >> I came to pharo looking for a new, better way of developing applications. I >> knew from reading about the history of computing that smalltalk was the >> purest object oriented language. I knew that it had pioneered many advanced >> ideas in program development. I knew that it was so far ahead of its time >> that other languages were still hobbling along behind it trying to catch up. >> I knew that java and C# were constantly trying to be more smalltalk-like. So >> I looked for a smalltalk â ideally an open source smalltalk that I could use >> on Linux. And so I came to pharo. If someone had told me that pharo was not >> smalltalk, I would not have been interested, I would have though pharo was >> just a niche product (like Rebol, say) - something that might simply fade >> away with no history behind it. And Iâm sure there are other people like me >> out there who also have heard of the smalltalk mystique. This heritage is >> something to be proud of. >> >> So why hide what pharo is? >> >> Itâs not smalltalkâs reputation as /dead/ that I think is likely to put >> people off. Itâs more smalltalksâs reputation as an academicâs language, >> used to investigate abstruse computer science problems, but unsuitable for >> mundane day-to-day development. The sort of language that cannot produce a >> stand-alone executable (a myth - but pharo could do with a deployment wizard >> of some kind). The sort of language that can produce incredible data >> visualisations (Roassal) but is unable to put up a decent data entry screen >> (Spec). (Sorry, that's unfair but I could not resist it! ) >> >> Rather than hide the smalltalk origins of pharo, I think they should be >> shouted from the rooftops. I would add something like this to the web page. >> >> */Pharo is an alive-and-kicking, developer-focused, version of smalltalk â >> the most beautiful idea in the history of computing./* >> >> Just my two cents. >> >> By the way, I really don't like the idea of using /agile /as a description >> of pharo. Agile means almost nothing now - it's just a management buzzword >> for nothing in particular. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4759204… >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >

May 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I made a pass on the new website

by Sebastian Sastre

On May 15, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think Luc's version is better, but doesn't fit with the new flat look of Pharo. > Also, both icons have a MacOS Aqua look, outdated by today's fashion. > > The advantage of using PayPal's standard icon (albeit outdated), is that it is easily identifiable and associated with a donation. It's not just a button, but also an icon. > > So I'd keep PayPal's version, unless replaced by an embedded donate form. :) > > Regards, > > ps: Do people ever donate? > > Esteban A. Maringolo +1 if you are not sure do A/B testing and get data-backed validation If you wonât for whatever reason the safest thing is stick with what the world understands the easiest (you donât want to raise the donation barrier)

May 15, 2014