Hi,

I do not claim that Pharo does not look like a Smalltalk now. It does as it shares quite a bit with the model. But, I do claim that it already has distinctive characteristics that make it go away from a "classic" Smalltalk. And there will be more and more in the future.

So, what is better as a communication strategy:

- to say that Pharo is "a Smalltalk with traits, modular compiler, slots and moldable debugger, ... (more to come in this list)", or

- to say that Pharo "is a modern Smalltalk-inspired system?"

We are not fooling anyone. We simply state that while we respect everything that Smalltalk stands for, Pharo will not be bound to it. This is not being disrespectful, it is simply creating the premise to look at how else we can invent the future. And there is so much to invent there.

Doru

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian@flowingconcept.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:

That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and language that is Smalltalk-inspired.

We do not need to apologize because Pharo was never dead :).

nice joke

Talking of Smalltalk-inspired��. Ruby is that, and is very successful BTW

So, yeah, we are aware that it would be incredibly lame to try to fool ourselves and the world by trying to sell the idea that Pharo is not��a Smalltalk.

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"