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

horrido horrido.hobbies at gmail.com
Wed Feb 5 18:32:42 EST 2020

I'm not sure ANSI compliance is particularly useful. Nobody develops an
application strictly to the ANSI standard. Ben Coman had to port VisualWorks
code to Pharo for my JRMPC competition and it wasn't exactly a cake walk.

My friend Bob Nemic got confused between VisualWorks and Pharo because of
the IDE! There is no standard convention applied to Smalltalk IDEs and, to
me, that's a big issue as well.

The fact is, the world of Smalltalk is just like the world of Linux. There
are enough differences among the various family members that you just have
to adapt. It will never be easy.

TedVanGaalen wrote
> Yes, Esteban, 
> maybe I was a bit harsh, in a sense you're right too,
> However it becomes blurred then wat Smalltalk really is.
> (e.g. I recommend Pharo as Smalltalk to others) 
> I would prefer -but who am I- 
> that all Smalltalk dialects should implement 
> the ANSI standard as a minimum and at least on 
> that level stay compatible.
> New developments should be built on top of that.
> and get incorporated in the ANSI standard at certain points in time.
> So that everybody on this planet can work with one Smalltalk.
> That makes sense, don't you agree? 
> They came very close to that with PLs like COBOL, ANSI C etc. 
> Standardization is industrial. No need
> to further explain this I guess. 
> The f. devil lives in the details, as they say,
> and it is exactly those little differences
> that makes it very hard to port packages
> from one Smalltalk dialect to another.
> In the current situation, that is where everybody wants to 
> go their own unique way, this has the consequence that
> if one Smalltalk dialect disappears (e.g. Squeak, Pharo, 
> Visualworks, whatever)  this would render packages 
> with often tons of work(e.g. Roassal ?) 
> worthless because they don't load/work in other Smalltalk 
> implementations/dialects without rewriting and retesting 
> the package again. This should not be the case. 
> Again, I am impressed by Pharo and really like it.
> but for me it goes too far to say that Pharo isn't Smalltalk.
> As a user, I edit classes methods etc in exactly the same
> way (syntax) as in most other Smalltalk dialects. 
> If you would take out the Smalltalk from Pharo all is left
> are a few bolts and nuts rendered useless: nothing
> to mount it on.  
> (Still the differences are currently not that big: 
> if I can file in st files from Squeak from 2010 and the 
> only thing I had to change was a datetime property) 
> (yet another reason I don't use traits is to remain compatible
> as much as possible between different Smalltalk implementations)
> my 4 cents. :o)
> Regards, thank you.
> TedvG
> btw
> Hard to convince people about this: 
> Also. nothing should be deprecated.
> Old sources should remain compatible.
> (Not like in Swift, where I had to rewrite parts of my 
> apps nearly every year because of deprecation fever)
> --
> 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 mailing list