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

Cédrick Béler cdrick65 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 5 14:47:08 EST 2020



> Le 5 févr. 2020 à 19:50, horrido <horrido.hobbies at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> 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,

Cédrick

[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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20200205/d183fb2f/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list