[Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"
horrido.hobbies at gmail.com
Wed Feb 5 15:01:33 EST 2020
I don't think conformance or non-conformance to ANSI is important. This is a
If Pharo becomes mainstream, nobody will care about ANSI conformance. Ditto
for any other flavour of Smalltalk.
> Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life
And VisualWorks doesn't have its own life? How about VA Smalltalk? This is
>> Le 5 févr. 2020 à 19:50, horrido <
> > 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 .
> 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,
>  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
>> , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community
>> 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 <
>>> > wrote:
>>>> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are
>>>> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not.
>>> I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't
>>> 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
>>> based on their history.
>> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
More information about the Pharo-users