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

phil at highoctane.be phil at highoctane.be
Thu Feb 6 13:40:52 EST 2020


This is tiring.

I like reading those blog posts.

And Pharo is not exactly Smalltalk, so what? Syntax close enough,
principles close enough.

What is there to win in arguing about this point?

I have been not using Pharo for a while commercially, because, well, Pharo
is a hard sell to companies.

Hence doing Scala, Java, and other "less productive" environments.
But with Eclipse Collections, Java 8 feels quite close when coupled with
something like IntelliJ Ultimate.

>From where I stand this looks like a battle in kindergarten.

Yawn.

Phil
ᐧ

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20200206/4ea15c9a/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list