February 2020 - Pharo-users

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

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 05.02.2020 um 19:02 schrieb horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com>: > > ï»¿ >> >> 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"? > As you have obviously trouble reading our web site for instructions like bug reporting or other things I copy the footer for you. â Pharo is developed by an international community of open-source developers, coordinated and maintained by the pharo consortium and receives essential support from Inria, RMOD, CNRS, UDL, Cristal and many others.â So we are a lot of core developers, Inria staff, consortium members and pharo board although Iâm not speaking on their behalf. > 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. Where did you check? > > 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??? It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it > > 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?!! > I just know that you are reluctant for a very long time to hear what we are saying. The rest is yours Norbert > > > -- > 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 Norbert Hartl

> Am 05.02.2020 um 18:22 schrieb Steve Davies <steve(a)connection-telecom.com>: > > ï»¿ > > >> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, CÃ©drick BÃ©ler <cdrick65(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org >> > > Thanks. > > My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing code going back to ST80. I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. > > Where are the better places for a Smalltalk (Pharo?) newbie to ask questions and follow along to deepen my understanding? > Iâm sorry for the confusion. But this list is exactly for people like you. If you take pharo and have a question or a problem this is the list to ask. The current threads are to ensure this list stays useful for this purpose. And thatâs why we want to reduce non-pharo related stuff and misuse of this list Please stay, Norbert > Thanks, > Steve >

Feb. 5, 2020

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

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 19:01, horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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??? > > 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?!! You don't understand: we don't deny our history or our family, we just don't want to be defined or constraint by it, nor do we want our mailing lists to be used for other purposes than to talk about Pharo.

Feb. 5, 2020

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

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> 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.

Feb. 5, 2020

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

by horrido

> 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??? 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

> pharo is not smalltalk I understand that Pharo wants to chart its own future, and that's great, but to deny its heritage only makes Pharo look haughty and foolish because... Pharo *is* Smalltalk in the same way that VisualWorks is Smalltalk and VA Smalltalk is Smalltalk and GemStone/S is Smalltalk and Squeak is Smalltalk and Dolphin Smalltalk is Smalltalk and so on. At their core, they're all Smalltalk. Their individual enhancements don't change this. And from 10,000 feet up, even their IDEs look all the same. It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are not LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... To be honest, I can't fathom the reason for denying that Pharo is Smalltalk. I don't see what it accomplishes. Smalltalk's heritage is not an albatross... it's a Russian rocket launcher <https://smalltalk.tech.blog/2020/01/19/why-smalltalk-is-so-easy-to-evangeli…> . > So in order to reach the people that are interested in smalltalk there are > plenty of better channels to put things there. Like what??? Name me one place that's well-populated and actively maintained for Smalltalk discussion. I scoured the web for such places and they were all ghost towns. -- 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 Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi Steve, > On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:21, Steve Davies <steve(a)connection-telecom.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, CÃ©drick BÃ©ler <cdrick65(a)gmail.com> wrote: > https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > > > Thanks. > > My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing code going back to ST80. I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. > > Where are the better places for a Smalltalk (Pharo?) newbie to ask questions and follow along to deepen my understanding? > > Thanks, > Steve As long as you ask questions about Pharo, this is the place. It does not matter that you would use the term Smalltalk when doing so or when learning. This is not the place to talk about fishing, time travel, different shades of blue, ... The context should always be Pharo, it is very simple. Sven BTW: 'Smalltalk' is a concept, not a single concrete language, and certainly not a single implementation.

Feb. 5, 2020

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

by Esteban Maringolo

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Steve Davies <steve(a)connection-telecom.com> wrote: > I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. Pharo is the political division(*) , Smalltalk was is the same territory. >From now on you can call it Pharo because it was built with its own merits, but you can't deny that regardless of the new flag, there was Smalltalk in the same territory. :-) Regards, (*) In cases like this, literally an arbitrary border. Esteban A. Maringolo

Feb. 5, 2020

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

by Steve Davies

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, CÃ©drick BÃ©ler <cdrick65(a)gmail.com> wrote: > https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > > Thanks. My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing code going back to ST80. I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. Where are the better places for a Smalltalk (Pharo?) newbie to ask questions and follow along to deepen my understanding? Thanks, Steve

Feb. 5, 2020

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

by CÃ©drick BÃ©ler

https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > Le 5 fÃ©vr. 2020 Ã 17:08, Steve Davies <steve(a)connection-telecom.com> a Ã©crit : > > ï»¿ > Hi, > > Can you point me to how to unsubscribe. Obviously not the list for me. > > Thanks, > Steve > > >> On Wed, 05 Feb 2020, 18:04 Esteban Lorenzano, <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> We are so over this discussion. >> 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. >> For any other argument, please take into account this thought from Alan Kay: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMJoLicXsAA7dej?format=jpg&name=small >> >> The real point is: This is a list for Pharo users, about Pharo usage. >> This is not comp.lang.smalltalk. >> This is not /r/smalltalk >> >> So, while off-topic is allowed at a certain point (and while talking about other dialects sometimes is not off-topic), please take that into account when you smalltalk about smalltalk. >> >> Cheers, >> Esteban >> >> >> > On 5 Feb 2020, at 16:36, TedVanGaalen <tedvga(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Pharo IS Smalltalk, whether you like it or not. >> > my 2 cents: >> > >> > This thread is incredibly ridiculous IMHO. >> > Is this becoming something like a religious argument, >> > like church schisms in medieval times? >> > >> > Pharo IS Smalltalk and that is good: >> > That means everyone that is familiar with >> > Smalltalk can use Pharo without any serious difficulties. >> > >> > For example, for learning, one can still use nearly everything >> > from an "old" book like "Smalltalk By Example" by Alex Sharp >> > from 1997 without any modifications whatsoever. >> > It all works. >> > >> > I've ported .st files between different Smalltalk systems >> > and it nearly always works without any modifications! >> > >> > (i don't use traits btw, because this is not Smalltalk >> > as I know it and creates nasty inter-object dependencies, >> > kind of "goto to attempt to multiple inheritance", but that's me :o) >> > >> > Apart from some minor deviations, Pharo conforms to >> > nearly all Smalltalk rules, object hierarchy and syntax. >> > >> > The fundamental system classes throughout all Smalltalk implementations >> > are virtually the same everywhere. Thank the gods for that. >> > COMPATIBILITY. <- read this again if you like. >> > >> > >> > Pharo excels in that the Pharo people did a lot of work in making >> > the Pharo environment productive and a real pleasure to work with! >> > but under the hood -even with the inclusion of new additions- it luckily >> > still is Smalltalk. >> > How can it be not: even the newer Pharo additions are in fact.. classes >> > written in Smalltalk? >> > >> > Making too much distinctions and differences between various implementations >> > and dialects of Smalltalk is not a good idea I think. You all want to >> > promote Smalltalk? Then Stick Together As Smalltalkers no matter >> > what version or dialect one is using! >> > Does this sound alien to you, maybe? >> > >> > To, me personally, it doesn't make much difference because luckily most >> > Smalltalk >> > implementations are mostly quite similar, allowing me to switch if needed >> > between (in arbitrary order , sigh) Squeak, Pharo, VisualWorks etc. >> > without too much effort. >> > >> > In making too much distinctions, you are in fact dividing >> > the Smalltalk community, which is bad in Smalltalk's fragile world. >> > Smalltalk, indeed, OOP already has too much opposition >> > of those sticking to other programming techniques etc. >> > >> > Kind Regards >> > TedvG >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >> > >> >>

Feb. 5, 2020