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

Lorenzo lorenzo at edor.it
Fri Feb 7 03:32:49 EST 2020





Da: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces at lists.pharo.org] Per conto di phil at highoctane.be
Inviato: giovedì 6 febbraio 2020 19:41
A: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users at lists.pharo.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"


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.







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

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

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/20200207/dd48d5de/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20200207/dd48d5de/attachment-0001.jpg>

More information about the Pharo-users mailing list