2014-04-30 15:07 GMT-03:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin@gmail.com>:

> Here is an unfortunate quote from that thread.
>
> """
> emaringolo 1 point an hour ago
> Pharo is aimed to do serious/business development, and it's been 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.

That's certainly an interpretation.

I didn't mean it wants to REMOVE compatibility, but I did mean it
doesn't wan't backward compatibility with Smalltalk per se. Sometimes
it isn't compatible with previous versions of itself!

I remember having read exactly that: "we don't want backward compatibility".

> 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.

This is exactly what I meant.

> We are moving forward. But this does not invalidate Pharo being
> a Smalltalk. As has been stated before, breaking changes happened in
> Smalltalk 76 and 80.

As a disclaimer I'm a strong defender of not hiding the "Smalltalk"
heritage in Pharo.
However there is no need to name something "Pharo Smalltalk" to have a
connection with its past, but also no need to avoid any mention of the
word Smalltalk in the new home page. At least from the SEO point of
view. :)

Regards,


Esteban A. Maringolo