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

horrido horrido.hobbies at gmail.com
Sat Feb 8 09:16:14 EST 2020

I agree completely. Pharo is a Smalltalk, but it need not be constrained by
Smalltalk-80. Pharo is completely free to chart its own course. As far as I
can tell, Nik Boyd's Hoot Smalltalk is doing the same thing.

This is purely a PR matter. Pharo's reputation doesn't want to be tarred
with Smalltalk's feathers. So the philosophy is, sever all ties with
Smalltalk's legacy.

Well, that's one approach. Here's another: change the public's perception of
Smalltalk. Take the bull by the horns. That's the total premise of my
five-year PR campaign.

Smalltalk's legacy is not an albatross. It can be a source of great power
for publicity. I intend to prove that.

Ben Coman wrote
> I am of the side of this argument that Pharo is a kind of Smalltalk,
> but the group that forked Squeak to create Pharo did so with the
> express intention of being separate-from-Smalltalk
> and we should respect that intention.  Indeed here we can see three
> reasons why they feel the need to advertise that separation...
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 21:45, TedVanGaalen <

> tedvga@

> > wrote:
>> make improvement/changes only in such
>> a way that anything written before will
>> run without any modification
> You are constraining what Pharo can be.
>> Downward compatibility prevents people
>> from have tediously edit and test their packages
>> again and again each time some have
>> the "brilliant" idea to deprecate stuff.
> You are constraining what Pharo can be.
>> If you want to implement newer core like things
>> co-existence with previous is preferable.
>> Do at the very least not alter the core/system classes.
> You are constraining what Pharo can be.
> The aim of the advertised statement that Pharo-is-not-Smalltalk is to
> avoid you "later" being surprised if it differs from ST-80.
> A marketing strategy analogous to a "fail early" programming paradigm,
> and avoid such arguments that try to shackle Pharo.
> In practice, its probably many years before Pharo is any more
> incompatible with Smalltalk than the incompatibilities between
> existing Smalltalks.
> But Smalltalk-backward-compatibility should not be one of your
> tick-boxes to choose Pharo.
> cheers -ben

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

More information about the Pharo-users mailing list