hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect! is it true? that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems! hmnn... ~mayuresh
There is a long story about all that. But to be short: - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80s⦠- we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible. So yeah On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:
hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect!
is it true?
that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems!
hmnn...
~mayuresh
AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it forks form. You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 friendly. I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :) On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
There is a long story about all that.
But to be short: - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80s⦠- we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible.
So yeah
On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:
hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect!
is it true?
that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems!
hmnn...
~mayuresh
I donât know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am using an application (Todd Blanchardâs HTMCSS parser and validator) which was originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeakâs left-arrow assignment with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak repository on smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now working perfectly with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were developing such a package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the Zinc library for the input of web pages, and that might cause portability problems. Similarly, if you develop something with an elaborate user interface in Pharo, you may find that the UI code does not port easily (or at all). But the core language of Pharo (and the language in which the libraries are written) is definitely Smalltalk. In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard Smalltalk. So where does the âhave to make it compatibleâ come from? Peter Kenny From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of kilon alios Sent: 05 September 2014 19:46 To: Any question about pharo is welcome Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk! AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it forks form. You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 friendly. I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :) On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com <mailto:yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> > wrote: There is a long story about all that. But to be short: - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80s⦠- we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible. So yeah On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in <mailto:mayuresh@kathe.in> > wrote:
hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect!
is it true?
that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems!
hmnn...
~mayuresh
yes⦠99% of the time Pharo and Squeak will be compatible. we share the vm and a large part of the codebase. but libraries are slowly diverging so you might find that what works in the one does not works automatically in the other. but again⦠my point is that all smalltalks are dialects⦠there is no such thing as a reference implementation :) Esteban On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:54, PBKResearch <peter@pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote:
I donât know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am using an application (Todd Blanchardâs HTMCSS parser and validator) which was originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeakâs left-arrow assignment with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak repository on smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now working perfectly with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were developing such a package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the Zinc library for the input of web pages, and that might cause portability problems. Similarly, if you develop something with an elaborate user interface in Pharo, you may find that the UI code does not port easily (or at all). But the core language of Pharo (and the language in which the libraries are written) is definitely Smalltalk.
In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard Smalltalk. So where does the âhave to make it compatibleâ come from?
Peter Kenny
From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of kilon alios Sent: 05 September 2014 19:46 To: Any question about pharo is welcome Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!
AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it forks form.
You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 friendly.
I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :)
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote: There is a long story about all that.
But to be short: - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80s⦠- we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible.
So yeah
On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:
hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect!
is it true?
that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems!
hmnn...
~mayuresh
In my opinion, this dialect thing is getting increasingly silly. And confusing. And silly. 2014-09-06 10:01 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
yes⦠99% of the time Pharo and Squeak will be compatible. we share the vm and a large part of the codebase. but libraries are slowly diverging so you might find that what works in the one does not works automatically in the other.
but again⦠my point is that all smalltalks are dialects⦠there is no such thing as a reference implementation :)
Esteban
On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:54, PBKResearch <peter@pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote:
I donât know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am using an application (Todd Blanchardâs HTMCSS parser and validator) which was originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeakâs left-arrow assignment with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak repository on smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now working perfectly with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were developing such a package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the Zinc library for the input of web pages, and that might cause portability problems. Similarly, if you develop something with an elaborate user interface in Pharo, you may find that the UI code does not port easily (or at all). But the core language of Pharo (and the language in which the libraries are written) is definitely Smalltalk.
In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard Smalltalk. So where does the âhave to make it compatibleâ come from?
Peter Kenny
*From:* Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org <pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org>] *On Behalf Of *kilon alios *Sent:* 05 September 2014 19:46 *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome *Subject:* Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!
AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it forks form.
You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 friendly.
I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :)
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
There is a long story about all that.
But to be short: - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80s⦠- we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible.
So yeah
On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:
hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect!
is it true?
that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems!
hmnn...
~mayuresh
In my opinion, this dialect thing is getting increasingly silly. And confusing. And silly.
It is not getting. It was like that already back in 1998 and before too. The syntax is one thing the libraries are another one! BTW I opened last year a VW from 1994 and I do not want to live there :) Stef
Le 06/09/2014 16:36, stepharo a écrit :
In my opinion, this dialect thing is getting increasingly silly. And confusing. And silly.
It is not getting. It was like that already back in 1998 and before too.
Yes. Who remember the differences between Envy / Parcplace / Digitalk / Smalltalk-mt / Smalltalk/X / Dolphin Smalltalk ?
The syntax is one thing the libraries are another one!
BTW I opened last year a VW from 1994 and I do not want to live there :)
But in 1992 it was a great place to be :) Thierry
Stef
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 06:09:15PM +0200, Thierry Goubier wrote:
Yes. Who remember the differences between Envy / Parcplace / Digitalk / Smalltalk-mt / Smalltalk/X / Dolphin Smalltalk ?
I still play with Smalltalk/X. It is very different from Pharo, but it is an implementation of Smalltalk nonetheless, just like Pharo is. Is there any true/pure Smalltalk-80 implementation in use still? Pierce
I find myself saying Pharo Smalltalk and Github marks our code as Smalltalk. Which is fine. "Pharo is Pharo" indeed. But the contents of the Blue Book still holds true. What I do know is that I enjoy programming in Pharo more than with anything else. VisualWorks may have more power but I can't stand its UI. And who can beat such an all MIT codebase that one can actually make sense of? At the moment I am running Pharo every single day for all day long and it is a great recurring experience. Long live Pharo! And to hell with that Smalltalk or not thing. Phil Le 6 sept. 2014 15:32, "Sergi Reyner" <sergi.reyner@gmail.com> a écrit :
In my opinion, this dialect thing is getting increasingly silly. And
confusing. And silly.
2014-09-06 10:01 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
yes⦠99% of the time Pharo and Squeak will be compatible. we share the vm and a large part of the codebase. but libraries are slowly diverging so you might find that what works in
the one does not works automatically in the other.
but again⦠my point is that all smalltalks are dialects⦠there is no
such thing as a reference implementation :)
Esteban
On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:54, PBKResearch <peter@pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote:
I donât know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many
practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am using an application (Todd Blanchardâs HTMCSS parser and validator) which was originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeakâs left-arrow assignment with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak repository on smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now working perfectly with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were developing such a package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the Zinc library for the input of web pages, and that might cause portability problems. Similarly, if you develop something with an elaborate user interface in Pharo, you may find that the UI code does not port easily (or at all). But the core language of Pharo (and the language in which the libraries are written) is definitely Smalltalk.
In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves
Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard Smalltalk. So where does the âhave to make it compatibleâ come from?
Peter Kenny
From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On
Behalf Of kilon alios
Sent: 05 September 2014 19:46 To: Any question about pharo is welcome Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!
AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it forks form.
You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 friendly.
I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :)
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
There is a long story about all that.
But to be short: - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with
other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80sâ¦
- we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible.
So yeah
On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:
hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect!
is it true?
that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems!
hmnn...
~mayuresh
Uko2 wrote
about pharo not being a smalltalk... is it true?
Oh goodie... it's been a few weeks and I've been craving one of these threads ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/not-a-smalltalk-tp4776586p4778202.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 15 Sep 2014, at 23:47, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Uko2 wrote
about pharo not being a smalltalk... is it true?
Oh goodie... it's been a few weeks and I've been craving one of these threads ;)
Actually, we were not talking about this at all when you were gone, it always starts when you are around ;-)
nuke it from orbit only way to be sure , this and "smalltalk is dead" On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 15 Sep 2014, at 23:47, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Uko2 wrote
about pharo not being a smalltalk... is it true?
Oh goodie... it's been a few weeks and I've been craving one of these threads ;)
Actually, we were not talking about this at all when you were gone, it always starts when you are around ;-)
Am 15.09.2014 um 23:54 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu>:
On 15 Sep 2014, at 23:47, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Uko2 wrote
about pharo not being a smalltalk... is it true?
Oh goodie... it's been a few weeks and I've been craving one of these threads ;)
Actually, we were not talking about this at all when you were gone, it always starts when you are around ;-)
Where's the like button? :)
no smalltalk around is âsmalltalkâ, technically they are all dialects and Pharo is just one dialect more. smalltalk-80 itself does not exist since⦠well, smalltalk-80 :) so no, your code would not be directly portable to other smalltalks (with the possible exception of gemstone). Esteban On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:
hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect!
is it true?
that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems!
hmnn...
~mayuresh
participants (14)
-
Ben Coman -
Esteban Lorenzano -
kilon alios -
Mayuresh Kathe -
Norbert Hartl -
PBKResearch -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Pierce Ng -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Sergi Reyner -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Thierry Goubier -
Yuriy Tymchuk