We are so over this discussion.
You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that���s ok.
We don���t, and that���s 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@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
>