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

horrido horrido.hobbies at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 10:52:28 EST 2020


> The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of
other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be.

Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk (which
eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with
unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only)
are.

Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less
and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk.

So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise
Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should cement
the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a
modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang).

Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains
Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo
evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes:

1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception.

2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of
messages.

3. The live coding environment.

4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability.

I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining qualities.
Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family.

And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because
Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can be
a family.

However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable.



--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html



More information about the Pharo-users mailing list