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

TedVanGaalen tedvga at gmail.com
Wed Feb 5 10:36:16 EST 2020


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



More information about the Pharo-users mailing list