If Pharo becomes mainstream, nobody will care about ANSI conformance. Ditto
for any other flavour of Smalltalk.

Yes... if...

For now it��s 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: that��d be fun to do a genealogy tree for the Smalltalk family. Maybe that could lower the noise on such subjects. I��ll give it a go.

Just found this slide from Oscar Nierstrasz

Cheers,

C��drick

cedreek wrote
Le 5 f��vr. 2020 �� 19:50, horrido <

horrido.hobbies@

> a ��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 ��Concept�� and this is true to me.

But, as I understand it (I��m not a board member), if called �� Smalltalk ��,
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 don��t 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,

C��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