[Pharo-project] I added a german wikipedia article on pharo.
Hi, Pharo was not mentioned on german wikipedia, so i added a stub for an article. If you speak german, please extend it :) (i will try to continue myself the next days) BTW is Pharo rather a 'Programming language' or an 'Implementation of a Programming language'? regards, Helene. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/I-added-a-german-wikipedia-article-on-pharo-tp4638330.... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Helene Bilbo wrote
BTW is Pharo rather a 'Programming language' or an 'Implementation of a Programming language'?
Pharo, as a Smalltalk is "a powerful information system... that can grow as the user's ideas grow.". It is composed of a Programming Language - "an interface between the models in the human mind and those in computing hardware" - and a User Interface, which "matches the human communication system to that of the computer" (quotes from the Blue Book). As a live, open, dynamic environment, it is much more than just "a programming language", which is why straight syntax comparisons to other languages miss the point. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/I-added-a-german-wikipedia-article-on-pharo-tp4638330p... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Sean P. DeNigris wrote
Pharo, as a Smalltalk is "a powerful information system... that can grow as the user's ideas grow.". It is composed of a Programming Language - "an interface between the models in the human mind and those in computing hardware" - and a User Interface, which "matches the human communication system to that of the computer" (quotes from the Blue Book). As a live, open, dynamic environment, it is much more than just "a programming language", which is why straight syntax comparisons to other languages miss the point. Yes you are right, of course. This should be taken into account in a wikipedia entry. What my question was about, was rather: Is is still Smalltalk? And i ask, because the first line on the Pharo homepage says itâs: "Smalltalk-inspiredâ. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/I-added-a-german-wikipedia-article-on-pharo-tp4638330p... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:
Sean P. DeNigris wrote
Pharo, as a Smalltalk is "a powerful information system... that can grow as the user's ideas grow.". It is composed of a Programming Language - "an interface between the models in the human mind and those in computing hardware" - and a User Interface, which "matches the human communication system to that of the computer" (quotes from the Blue Book). As a live, open, dynamic environment, it is much more than just "a programming language", which is why straight syntax comparisons to other languages miss the point.
Yes you are right, of course. This should be taken into account in a wikipedia entry.
What my question was about, was rather: Is is still Smalltalk?
Right now I think it is. There is not much different. There are Traits, but else...
And i ask, because the first line on the Pharo homepage says itâs: "Smalltalk-inspiredâ.
The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously move forward. E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk it could not. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Hi guys, On 05. 07. 2012 11:07, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:
And i ask, because the first line on the Pharo homepage says itâs: "Smalltalk-inspiredâ.
The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously move forward.
E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk it could not.
Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'. Please, don't divide Smalltalk community but act as much as possible in joint spirit! Which of course doesn't mean that moving forward is necessary. And I also don't see why you cannot move forward and stay Smalltalk? Certainly not from a Slots example. If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth supporting or not. Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si> wrote:
Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'.
I think we just don't all have the definition of "Smalltalk". If "Smalltalk" means the ANSI standard then Pharo will take the spririt of Smalltalk but won't be a Smalltalk anymore as it won't be compatible with the standard. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
On 05 Jul 2012, at 11:44, Janko Mivšek wrote:
Hi guys,
On 05. 07. 2012 11:07, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:
And i ask, because the first line on the Pharo homepage says itâs: "Smalltalk-inspiredâ.
The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously move forward.
E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk it could not.
Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'.
Please, don't divide Smalltalk community but act as much as possible in joint spirit! Which of course doesn't mean that moving forward is necessary. And I also don't see why you cannot move forward and stay Smalltalk? Certainly not from a Slots example.
If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth supporting or not.
But you have to read what Marcus said: Smalltalk could be and/or is defined by Smalltalk-80 and an ANSI spec. If we say that Pharo conforms to that, any of the very useful improvements being proposed will always be stopped in their tracks because the changes are not compatible with these old defacto standards. Pharo was started explicitely to avoid that. For most casual observers I think it will remain Smalltalk. Sven
It's Pharo Smalltalk 2012/7/5 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@beta9.be>
On 05 Jul 2012, at 11:44, Janko Mivšek wrote:
Hi guys,
On 05. 07. 2012 11:07, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:
And i ask, because the first line on the Pharo homepage says itâs: "Smalltalk-inspiredâ.
The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously move forward.
E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk it could not.
Why not rather move all Smalltalk forward instead? Good ideas from Pharo should be communicated to other Smalltalks. And vice versa - good ideas from other Smalltalks should be studied and put in Pharo. But Pharo should stay Smalltalk, not 'Smalltalk inspired'.
Please, don't divide Smalltalk community but act as much as possible in joint spirit! Which of course doesn't mean that moving forward is necessary. And I also don't see why you cannot move forward and stay Smalltalk? Certainly not from a Slots example.
If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth supporting or not.
But you have to read what Marcus said: Smalltalk could be and/or is defined by Smalltalk-80 and an ANSI spec. If we say that Pharo conforms to that, any of the very useful improvements being proposed will always be stopped in their tracks because the changes are not compatible with these old defacto standards. Pharo was started explicitely to avoid that.
For most casual observers I think it will remain Smalltalk.
Sven
-- Philippe Back Dramatic Performance Improvements Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail: phil@highoctane.be| Web: http://philippeback.eu | Blog: http://philippeback.be High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 1301 Bierges Belgium
On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
If Pharo will try to distance from Smalltalk rather than contribute and improve it, I'm sure many of us will rethink if Pharo is worth supporting or not.
But you have to read what Marcus said: Smalltalk could be and/or is defined by Smalltalk-80 and an ANSI spec. If we say that Pharo conforms to that, any of the very useful improvements being proposed will always be stopped in their tracks because the changes are not compatible with these old defacto standards. Pharo was started explicitely to avoid that.
For most casual observers I think it will remain Smalltalk
Yes, this is what I wanted to say. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
On 5 July 2012 11:44, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si> wrote:
Hi guys,
On 05. 07. 2012 11:07, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Helene Bilbo wrote:
And i ask, because the first line on the Pharo homepage says itâs: "Smalltalk-inspiredâ.
The idea is that if Pharo is Smalltak, it will always be Smalltalk. We can not move on. If it is Smalltalk Inspired, we can take the *ideas* behind Smalltalk and seriously move forward.
E.g. take the Slots. Smalltalk has no first class Slots, Pharo will. If Pharo would *be* Smalltalk it could not.
Pharo IS smalltalk. Smalltalk by its nature are made to be easily changed. I don't remember the precise quote from Alan Kay, where he said that he feels a bit disappointed about the fact that people never thought about having more subclasses of Behavior than just Class and Metaclass. Please don't turn the idea into dogma. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Igor Stasenko wrote
Smalltalk by its nature are made to be easily changed. ... Please don't turn the idea into dogma.
YES!!! Part of the confusion is that Smalltalk and Smalltalk-80 get collapsed, but are not the same. Smalltalk-80 was the fifth cycle (per the Blue Book) in what was supposed to be a continuous process of learning how to do systems... Please see "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", Alan Kay's keynote, October 7, 1997, OOPSLA'97 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521 (if you must, skip to 57:25 for the part most relevant to this reply). Here are some quotes (in order of relevance): "The deepest thing I would like to communicate with you today... is we don't know how to design systems yet. So let's not make what we don't know into a religion for god's sakes." "The thing that I'm most proud of about Smalltalk - pretty much the only thing from my standpoint that I'm proud of - is that is has been so good at getting rid of previous versions of itself" "One of the things we liked about Smalltalk was not what it could do, but the fact that it was such a good vehicle for bootstrapping the next set of ideas we had about how to do systems programming" "We have to have our systems let us get to the next levels of abstraction as we come to them." "A couple of years ago we started this project called Squeak, which is simply not an attempt to give the world a free Smalltalk, but an attempt to give the world a bootstrapping mechanism for something much better than Smalltalk, and when you fool around with Squeak, please, please, think of it from that standpoint. Think of how you can obsolete the damn thing by using its own mechanisms for getting the next version of itself." -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/I-added-a-german-wikipedia-article-on-pharo-tp4638330p... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
participants (8)
-
Damien Cassou -
Helene Bilbo -
Igor Stasenko -
Janko Mivšek -
Marcus Denker -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Sven Van Caekenberghe