Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
Benoît, Stop this non-sense, please. For somebody, intelligent, with decades experience in using some Smalltalk implementation, who has been on this list for years, you have a very hard time reading and understanding what is being said, and you know it. The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be. We don't want that, it is a simple as that. We will help and support anybody doing anything with Pharo, as we have always done. In open source, you cannot go some mailing list and tell people what should be done and endlessly discuss about that: just do it yourself. Sven
On 6 Feb 2020, at 10:00, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> wrote:
From: Benoit St-Jean <bstjean@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk" Date: 6 February 2020 at 10:00:04 GMT+1 To: pharo-users@lists.pharo.org
Then I have a question... and I'm not being sarcastic here!
As Pharo users, are we allowed to suggest ideas from other environments, even other languages or projects?
If I think we should implement something similar to VisualWork's MemoryPolicy in Pharo, where should I discuss that?
If I see package XYZ in Python that I think would be worth porting to Pharo, where should I discuss that?
If there are features in the Atom editor that are worth considering & cool for Pharo, where should I discuss that?
If I have ideas/places/means to promote Pharo or give it exposure, where should I discuss that?
If VisualAge has a nice config map to interface MQSeries and I'd like to know if a port to Pharo would interest anyone, where should I discuss that?
If I want to know if there's any interest to develop a native DB2 database driver, should I discuss it here ? From what I've read, the answer is NO. Do you really think that if I post "hey guys, we should really port that to Pharo" on comp.databases.ibm-db2, it will draw any attention from Pharoers ? This is getting ridiculous!
I mean, are we limited to only discuss about what's in the Pharo image? Yeah, the Collection hierarchy is cool but are we gonna talk about that for the next 5 years? As a Pharo USER, I am not limited to what's in the image : Pharo interfaces with lots of things on the outside. If we can't discuss about what's outside of the image and that could improve Pharo (library-wise), tell me where I can do so!
If I understand correctly, we can't talk about anything that is not 100% Pharo on pharo-dev, pharo-users and lse-pharo4pharo, is that it ?!?!?!? What's left for the "outside world" ?
P.S. I'm not saying that this mailing list should be a catch-all place where we can discuss about baseball, fishing, cars, music, chess, C# and politics. There has to be a way to sometimes discuss about stuff that is "outside" of Pharo but that could help us improve it!
On 2020-02-06 03:21, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Then let it phrase it like this: this list is not to talk about the whole Smalltalk universe but this particular implementation.
-- ----------------- Benoît St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Twitter: @BenLeChialeux Pinterest: benoitstjean Instagram: Chef_Benito IRC: lamneth GitHub: bstjean Blogue: endormitoire.wordpress.com "A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero". (A. Einstein)
The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be.
Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk (which eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only) are. Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk. So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should cement the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang). Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes: 1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception. 2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of messages. 3. The live coding environment. 4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability. I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining qualities. Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family. And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can be a family. However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
This is tiring. I like reading those blog posts. And Pharo is not exactly Smalltalk, so what? Syntax close enough, principles close enough. What is there to win in arguing about this point? I have been not using Pharo for a while commercially, because, well, Pharo is a hard sell to companies. Hence doing Scala, Java, and other "less productive" environments. But with Eclipse Collections, Java 8 feels quite close when coupled with something like IntelliJ Ultimate.
From where I stand this looks like a battle in kindergarten.
Yawn. Phil ᧠On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> wrote:
The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be.
Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk (which eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only) are.
Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk.
So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should cement the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang).
Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes:
1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception.
2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of messages.
3. The live coding environment.
4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability.
I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining qualities. Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family.
And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can be a family.
However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable.
-- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
Bravo!!!!! Lorenzo Da: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] Per conto di phil@highoctane.be Inviato: giovedì 6 febbraio 2020 19:41 A: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> Oggetto: Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk" This is tiring. I like reading those blog posts. And Pharo is not exactly Smalltalk, so what? Syntax close enough, principles close enough. What is there to win in arguing about this point? I have been not using Pharo for a while commercially, because, well, Pharo is a hard sell to companies. Hence doing Scala, Java, and other "less productive" environments. But with Eclipse Collections, Java 8 feels quite close when coupled with something like IntelliJ Ultimate.
From where I stand this looks like a battle in kindergarten.
Yawn. Phil ᧠On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com <mailto:horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> > wrote:
The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be.
Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk (which eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only) are. Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk. So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should cement the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang). Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes: 1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception. 2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of messages. 3. The live coding environment. 4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability. I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining qualities. Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family. And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can be a family. However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
participants (4)
-
horrido -
Lorenzo -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Sven Van Caekenberghe