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

Steve Davies steve at connection-telecom.com
Wed Feb 5 11:07:13 EST 2020


Hi,

Can you point me to how to unsubscribe. Obviously not the list for me.

Thanks,
Steve


On Wed, 05 Feb 2020, 18:04 Esteban Lorenzano, <estebanlm at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 at 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
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20200205/565b50d8/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list