February 2020 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by Pavel Krivanek

st 5. 2. 2020 v 20:48 odesÃlatel horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> napsal: > I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the > critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. > > So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? > > If you're an evangelist, you have to develop a thick skin and follow your > heart. Otherwise, get out of the kitchen... > You are a victim of your own strong confirmation bias. I hardly can break it but I just want to point out that in the mentioned discussion, there was no fan of you (and there were more people complaining than the two I mentioned). Pavel Krivanek-3 wrote > > st 5. 2. 2020 v 19:02 odesÃlatel horrido < > > > horrido.hobbies@ > > > > napsal: > > > >> > You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, thatâs ok. We > >> donât, and thatâs ok too. Is about what we want to do. > >> > >> Who's "we"? > >> > >> Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core > >> developers; it's a community. And I believe there are many Pharoers who > >> share my view. > >> > >> Since I'm a Smalltalk evangelist and not a Pharo evangelist, I guess I > >> shouldn't ever mention Pharo in my blog. After all, if it's not > >> Smalltalk, > >> why should I promote it??? > >> > > > > Pharo 8.0 release Reddit discussion included some feedback you > > may appreciate: > > > > "Thanks. Does this Pharo release removes feature "Richard Kenneth Eng"? > > That was the only feature in detriment to such an excellent environment > as > > Pharo." > > > > "I really like the idea of pharo's features and smalltalk is quite > > interesting, but I can't help but be put off by the insanely stupid > > marketing culture around it. Most articles about it exaggerate way too > > much > > and seem like they're written by people who were paid to write about it. > > Or > > maybe I'm reading Medium-cancer too much." > > > > > > > >> In fact, this is disastrous for my JRMPC competition since it's based > >> entirely on Pharo. I'm promoting Smalltalk but pushing Pharo on all the > >> participating teams??? What the f*ck am I doing?!! > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

I'm not sure whose feedback I should regard as wisdom. This uncertainty stems from a key philosophical difference I had 5 years ago. Read Interview with a Smalltalk Evangelist <https://medium.com/@richardeng/interview-with-a-smalltalk-evangelist-711e3f…> . At the time, I don't think anybody agreed with me philosophically. I imagine most of you /still/ don't agree with me. So given this disagreement, how can I regard any feedback as wisdom? > but given your recent questions in the list, you don't today. You are correct, I'm no longer much of a programmer today. I retired many years ago and I've grown rusty. Nevertheless, my background qualifies me to evangelize a programming language at an overview level. I may not be able to evangelize at a technical code level, but at a conceptual level, I certainly can. Esteban A. Maringolo wrote > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:48 PM horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > wrote: >> >> I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the >> critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. >> >> So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? > > tr;dr answer: know who you listen to. > > But if you've been for a while (it is, years) here in this tiny tribe > (in global scale) that is the Smalltalk community, you'd pay attention > to the critics from many whose feedback can be treated as wisdom. > > In particular when you're promoting something that you might have > mastered in the past, but given your recent questions in the list, you > don't today. > > Smalltalk as a concept lacks a good PR these days, so does Pharo as a > product (although non-commercial), but Pharo has been successful in > growing organically and create some kind of grassroots, albeit slow. > > And in technical environments bad PR is counterproductive and if you > push too hard it usually fires back. > > Regards, > > Esteban A. Maringolo -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by CÃ©drick BÃ©ler

> > ï»¿I don't think conformance or non-conformance to ANSI is important. This is a > red herring. You think... it was important in lots of past discussions that is at the end pure waste of energy as, unsurprisingly, this thread. > > If Pharo becomes mainstream, nobody will care about ANSI conformance. Ditto > for any other flavour of Smalltalk. Yes... if... For now itâs not. > >> Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life > > And VisualWorks doesn't have its own life? How about VA Smalltalk? This is > sophistry. Yes but they are more like uncles ^^, eventually first cousins but clearly not brothers or sisters (this last sentence engages only my opinion and is again some sort of metaphors) ;-) Side note: thatâd be fun to do a genealogy tree for the Smalltalk family. Maybe that could lower the noise on such subjects. Iâll give it a go. Just found this slide from Oscar Nierstrasz Cheers, CÃ©drick > > > > cedreek wrote >>> Le 5 fÃ©vr. 2020 Ã 19:50, horrido < > >> horrido.hobbies@ > >> > a Ã©crit : >>> >>> Yes, these are two completely different issues... >>> >>> - Pharo is Smalltalk >> >> As you state, you use Smalltalk as the superset of all Smalltalk >> descendance, what Sven call âConceptâ and this is true to me. >> >> But, as I understand it (Iâm not a board member), if called Â« Smalltalk Â», >> then some people will ask (and debate) so that Pharo has to be conform to >> ANSI Smalltalk standard (the standard approved on May 19, 1998). >> >> Pharo is a fork of squeak and can be seen as Smalltalk-80 grand-parent, >> Squeak being the parent ^^. >> Pharo wants to emancipate as all child. Squeak actually had/have this >> recurring question already [1]. >> >> Pharo *from the start* decided not to be ANSI compliant as it is >> orthogonal to the envisioned progress/changes (Trait are one first example >> and this really was a hard discussion and probably what settled the fork). >> >> I think Pharo founders wanted to avoid flaming wars again on design and >> architectural decisions by trying to squeeze this aspect (not a pure >> smalltalk so do no expect ANSI compliance) and now, as a result, we get >> this backlashing thread where people feel Pharo donât assume Smalltalk >> heritage. Life is often ironic :-s. >> >> Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life, and even if they >> share lots of the same ADN. >> >> My 2 cents, >> >> CÃ©drick >> >> [1] https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172 >> <https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum >>> >>> I get it. But as I point out here >>> <http://forum.world.st/Fuzzy-Thinking-in-Smalltalk-tp5111111p5111191.html> >>> , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community >>> is >>> willing to participate in evangelizing Smalltalk. >>> >>> If there is truly another avenue that is as effective, I'm all ears. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >>>>> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido < >>> >>>> horrido.hobbies@ >>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are >>>>> not >>>>> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. >>>> >>>> I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't >>>> want >>>> you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about >>>> general lisp revivals. >>>> >>>> Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't >>>> do >>>> based on their history. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >>> > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by Esteban Maringolo

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:48 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the > critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. > > So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? tr;dr answer: know who you listen to. But if you've been for a while (it is, years) here in this tiny tribe (in global scale) that is the Smalltalk community, you'd pay attention to the critics from many whose feedback can be treated as wisdom. In particular when you're promoting something that you might have mastered in the past, but given your recent questions in the list, you don't today. Smalltalk as a concept lacks a good PR these days, so does Pharo as a product (although non-commercial), but Pharo has been successful in growing organically and create some kind of grassroots, albeit slow. And in technical environments bad PR is counterproductive and if you push too hard it usually fires back. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

I don't think conformance or non-conformance to ANSI is important. This is a red herring. If Pharo becomes mainstream, nobody will care about ANSI conformance. Ditto for any other flavour of Smalltalk. > Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life And VisualWorks doesn't have its own life? How about VA Smalltalk? This is sophistry. cedreek wrote >> Le 5 fÃ©vr. 2020 Ã 19:50, horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > a Ã©crit : >> >> Yes, these are two completely different issues... >> >> - Pharo is Smalltalk > > As you state, you use Smalltalk as the superset of all Smalltalk > descendance, what Sven call âConceptâ and this is true to me. > > But, as I understand it (Iâm not a board member), if called Â« Smalltalk Â», > then some people will ask (and debate) so that Pharo has to be conform to > ANSI Smalltalk standard (the standard approved on May 19, 1998). > > Pharo is a fork of squeak and can be seen as Smalltalk-80 grand-parent, > Squeak being the parent ^^. > Pharo wants to emancipate as all child. Squeak actually had/have this > recurring question already [1]. > > Pharo *from the start* decided not to be ANSI compliant as it is > orthogonal to the envisioned progress/changes (Trait are one first example > and this really was a hard discussion and probably what settled the fork). > > I think Pharo founders wanted to avoid flaming wars again on design and > architectural decisions by trying to squeeze this aspect (not a pure > smalltalk so do no expect ANSI compliance) and now, as a result, we get > this backlashing thread where people feel Pharo donât assume Smalltalk > heritage. Life is often ironic :-s. > > Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life, and even if they > share lots of the same ADN. > > My 2 cents, > > CÃ©drick > > [1] https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172 > <https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172> > > > > >> >> - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum >> >> I get it. But as I point out here >> <http://forum.world.st/Fuzzy-Thinking-in-Smalltalk-tp5111111p5111191.html> >> , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community >> is >> willing to participate in evangelizing Smalltalk. >> >> If there is truly another avenue that is as effective, I'm all ears. >> >> >> >> Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >>>> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido < >> >>> horrido.hobbies@ >> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are >>>> not >>>> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. >>> >>> I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't >>> want >>> you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about >>> general lisp revivals. >>> >>> Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't >>> do >>> based on their history. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >> -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? If you're an evangelist, you have to develop a thick skin and follow your heart. Otherwise, get out of the kitchen... Pavel Krivanek-3 wrote > st 5. 2. 2020 v 19:02 odesÃlatel horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > napsal: > >> > You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, thatâs ok. We >> donât, and thatâs ok too. Is about what we want to do. >> >> Who's "we"? >> >> Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core >> developers; it's a community. And I believe there are many Pharoers who >> share my view. >> >> Since I'm a Smalltalk evangelist and not a Pharo evangelist, I guess I >> shouldn't ever mention Pharo in my blog. After all, if it's not >> Smalltalk, >> why should I promote it??? >> > > Pharo 8.0 release Reddit discussion included some feedback you > may appreciate: > > "Thanks. Does this Pharo release removes feature "Richard Kenneth Eng"? > That was the only feature in detriment to such an excellent environment as > Pharo." > > "I really like the idea of pharo's features and smalltalk is quite > interesting, but I can't help but be put off by the insanely stupid > marketing culture around it. Most articles about it exaggerate way too > much > and seem like they're written by people who were paid to write about it. > Or > maybe I'm reading Medium-cancer too much." > > > >> In fact, this is disastrous for my JRMPC competition since it's based >> entirely on Pharo. I'm promoting Smalltalk but pushing Pharo on all the >> participating teams??? What the f*ck am I doing?!! >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >> >> -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by CÃ©drick BÃ©ler

> Le 5 fÃ©vr. 2020 Ã 19:50, horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > Yes, these are two completely different issues... > > - Pharo is Smalltalk As you state, you use Smalltalk as the superset of all Smalltalk descendance, what Sven call âConceptâ and this is true to me. But, as I understand it (Iâm not a board member), if called Â« Smalltalk Â», then some people will ask (and debate) so that Pharo has to be conform to ANSI Smalltalk standard (the standard approved on May 19, 1998). Pharo is a fork of squeak and can be seen as Smalltalk-80 grand-parent, Squeak being the parent ^^. Pharo wants to emancipate as all child. Squeak actually had/have this recurring question already [1]. Pharo *from the start* decided not to be ANSI compliant as it is orthogonal to the envisioned progress/changes (Trait are one first example and this really was a hard discussion and probably what settled the fork). I think Pharo founders wanted to avoid flaming wars again on design and architectural decisions by trying to squeeze this aspect (not a pure smalltalk so do no expect ANSI compliance) and now, as a result, we get this backlashing thread where people feel Pharo donât assume Smalltalk heritage. Life is often ironic :-s. Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life, and even if they share lots of the same ADN. My 2 cents, CÃ©drick [1] https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172 <https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172> > > - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum > > I get it. But as I point out here > <http://forum.world.st/Fuzzy-Thinking-in-Smalltalk-tp5111111p5111191.html> > , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community is > willing to participate in evangelizing Smalltalk. > > If there is truly another avenue that is as effective, I'm all ears. > > > > Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >>> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido < > >> horrido.hobbies@ > >> > wrote: >>> >>> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are not >>> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. >> >> I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't want >> you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about >> general lisp revivals. >> >> Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't do >> based on their history. > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

> It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it Well, that's a peculiar attitude. There are many, many programming language evangelists and I don't think anybody "asked" them to do it. They do it for the love of the language. I hear what you're saying, and I understand fully. I just don't agree with it entirely. I think it's short-sighted. Smalltalk has long been criticized for being a secluded island, and now you want to do the same for Pharo? Even as I try to build bridges to the island? You could ban everybody from this forum who aren't focussed 100% on Pharo and you'd have a much smaller community. You could ban everybody who is a Smalltalker. The result is a much more tightly focussed forum, clean and free from distractions. Fine. But what is the long-term cost? Smalltalk evangelism would come to an end. Why? Because frankly nobody is interested in the other Smalltalks. Pharo is where all the action is. And without Smalltalk evangelism, I don't see a path for Pharo becoming more than a niche language. Pharo doesn't show up an *any* language popularity index. At least Clojure, Erlang/Elixir, and Haskell are in the top 30 in several places. At Indeed, there are 18 job postings in the United States that mention Smalltalk, and none for Pharo. Even Clojure has 404, Erlang has 274, and Haskell has 519, pathetic though these numbers are. Yes, I also understand that there are many Pharoers who don't care about remaining niche. That's a tragedy. I would rather not have wasted the last five years of my life. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by Pavel Krivanek

st 5. 2. 2020 v 19:02 odesÃlatel horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> napsal: > > You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, thatâs ok. We > donât, and thatâs ok too. Is about what we want to do. > > Who's "we"? > > Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core > developers; it's a community. And I believe there are many Pharoers who > share my view. > > Since I'm a Smalltalk evangelist and not a Pharo evangelist, I guess I > shouldn't ever mention Pharo in my blog. After all, if it's not Smalltalk, > why should I promote it??? > Pharo 8.0 release Reddit discussion included some feedback you may appreciate: "Thanks. Does this Pharo release removes feature "Richard Kenneth Eng"? That was the only feature in detriment to such an excellent environment as Pharo." "I really like the idea of pharo's features and smalltalk is quite interesting, but I can't help but be put off by the insanely stupid marketing culture around it. Most articles about it exaggerate way too much and seem like they're written by people who were paid to write about it. Or maybe I'm reading Medium-cancer too much." > In fact, this is disastrous for my JRMPC competition since it's based > entirely on Pharo. I'm promoting Smalltalk but pushing Pharo on all the > participating teams??? What the f*ck am I doing?!! > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >

Feb. 5, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

Yes, these are two completely different issues... - Pharo is Smalltalk - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum I get it. But as I point out here <http://forum.world.st/Fuzzy-Thinking-in-Smalltalk-tp5111111p5111191.html> , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community is willing to participate in evangelizing Smalltalk. If there is truly another avenue that is as effective, I'm all ears. Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > wrote: >> >> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are not >> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. > > I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't want > you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about > general lisp revivals. > > Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't do > based on their history. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 5, 2020