"Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
Dear Pharoers, I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: 1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future 3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it. Cheers Helge
On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: • Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
Well, the question may also be: what IS Smalltalk? The ANSI Standard? ST-80? Whose implementation IS Smalltalk in that case? I think many current implementations may safely say that they are Smalltalk-inpired.
• All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
I think you are overgeneralizing. Doru is saying that Pharo is not sticking to (let’s say) the historical concept of Smalltalk. Sure, you may imply from that that some Smalltalks ARE sticking to that concept. But IMO it is not valid to conclude that he is saying that ALL of them are like that.
• The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I don’t follow your reasoning. Divorce is a very strong and aggressive statement. I don’t see that from what Doru is saying. Could you provide more detail for your train of thought?
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Just my 0.02EUR ... ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
Dear Johan, I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks. By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those is that in this light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community. Whether you reckon the word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is your personal feeling. Divorce is a usual term describing the splitting of a former whole. I don't find it aggressive. Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk. If it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away from some Smalltalk concept (technical or non-technical) it should be said so, and whith regards to which concept and into what differing direction. There are many ways to the future. No problem with that. Smalltalk will walk its path. Cheers Helge „Wege entstehen dadurch, dass man sie geht.“, Franz Kafka ________________________________ Von: Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl> An: Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> CC: "pharo-business@lists.pharo.org" <pharo-business@lists.pharo.org>; "pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr" <pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; ESUG <esug-list@lists.esug.org> Gesendet: 12:24 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014 Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired" On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
Dear Pharoers, I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: • Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
Well, the question may also be: what IS Smalltalk? The ANSI Standard? ST-80? Whose implementation IS Smalltalk in that case? I think many current implementations may safely say that they are Smalltalk-inpired.
• All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
I think you are overgeneralizing. Doru is saying that Pharo is not sticking to (let’s say) the historical concept of Smalltalk. Sure, you may imply from that that some Smalltalks ARE sticking to that concept. But IMO it is not valid to conclude that he is saying that ALL of them are like that.
• The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I don’t follow your reasoning. Divorce is a very strong and aggressive statement. I don’t see that from what Doru is saying. Could you provide more detail for your train of thought?
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Just my 0.02EUR ... ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On 7/31/14 4:09 , Helge Nowak wrote:
Dear Johan,
I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those is that in this light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community.
So, how do you define "Smalltalk community"? Andres.
Whether you reckon the word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is your personal feeling. Divorce is a usual term describing the splitting of a former whole. I don't find it aggressive.
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk. If it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away from some Smalltalk concept (technical or non-technical) it should be said so, and whith regards to which concept and into what differing direction. There are many ways to the future. No problem with that. Smalltalk will walk its path.
Cheers Helge „Wege entstehen dadurch, dass man sie geht.“, Franz Kafka
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Von:* Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl> *An:* Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> *CC:* "pharo-business@lists.pharo.org" <pharo-business@lists.pharo.org>; "pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr" <pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; ESUG <esug-list@lists.esug.org> *Gesendet:* 12:24 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014 *Betreff:* Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de <mailto:hknowak@yahoo.de>> wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: • Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
Well, the question may also be: what IS Smalltalk? The ANSI Standard? ST-80? Whose implementation IS Smalltalk in that case? I think many current implementations may safely say that they are Smalltalk-inpired.
• All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
I think you are overgeneralizing. Doru is saying that Pharo is not sticking to (let’s say) the historical concept of Smalltalk. Sure, you may imply from that that some Smalltalks ARE sticking to that concept. But IMO it is not valid to conclude that he is saying that ALL of them are like that.
• The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community
that gave them birth
I don’t follow your reasoning. Divorce is a very strong and aggressive statement. I don’t see that from what Doru is saying. Could you provide more detail for your train of thought?
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Just my 0.02EUR ...
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <http://emailcharter.org/><---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On 31 Jul 2014, at 13:09, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
Dear Johan,
I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
Squeak definitly never had that goal. When I discovered it it was explicitly stated that is was “Work in progress based on Smalltalk 80 with which it is still reasonably compatible”.
By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences.
Yes, the freedom to do things that are not in all the other Smalltalks already. Not because these are “not Smalltalk”, only because they where not there in the past, even though maybe they should have. Marcus
Dear Helge, Johan et al, to me, it seems obvious that Pharo is Smalltalk, in a sense in which Ruby et al are not Smalltalk although they are Smalltalk-inspired. Of course, all Smalltalks are also inspired by earlier Smalltalks and by other current Smalltalks. All Smalltalk dialects share a good deal of base class library compatibility but of course even as regards non-UI, what runs on one Smalltalk may DNU on another, unless written with a cross-dialect goal in view or using a compatibility layer or with some code differences in dialect versions. When you get into the area of UI, compatibility is more the exception than the rule. It may be that the talk's phrasing was accidentally a bit misleading - or was intentionally exaggerated to avoid a "Smalltalk - isn't that old" reaction from that particular audience. I don't mind exactly what is said in any particular talk oriented to a particular audience, but it seems clear to me that Pharo is a dialect of Smalltalk; it is not _just_ Smalltalk-inspired. Just my 0.02p FWIW Niall Ross Helge Nowak wrote:
Dear Johan,
I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those is that in this light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community. Whether you reckon the word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is your personal feeling. Divorce is a usual term describing the splitting of a former whole. I don't find it aggressive.
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk. If it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away from some Smalltalk concept (technical or non-technical) it should be said so, and whith regards to which concept and into what differing direction. There are many ways to the future. No problem with that. Smalltalk will walk its path.
Cheers Helge „Wege entstehen dadurch, dass man sie geht.“, Franz Kafka
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Von:* Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl> *An:* Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> *CC:* "pharo-business@lists.pharo.org" <pharo-business@lists.pharo.org>; "pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr" <pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; ESUG <esug-list@lists.esug.org> *Gesendet:* 12:24 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014 *Betreff:* Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de <mailto:hknowak@yahoo.de>> wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: • Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
Well, the question may also be: what IS Smalltalk? The ANSI Standard? ST-80? Whose implementation IS Smalltalk in that case? I think many current implementations may safely say that they are Smalltalk-inpired.
• All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
I think you are overgeneralizing. Doru is saying that Pharo is not sticking to (let’s say) the historical concept of Smalltalk. Sure, you may imply from that that some Smalltalks ARE sticking to that concept. But IMO it is not valid to conclude that he is saying that ALL of them are like that.
• The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community
that gave them birth
I don’t follow your reasoning. Divorce is a very strong and aggressive statement. I don’t see that from what Doru is saying. Could you provide more detail for your train of thought?
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Just my 0.02EUR ...
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <http://emailcharter.org/><---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry <http://pleiad.cl/%7Ejfabry> PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce' itself from Smalltalk 'proper'. I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held Pharo back. What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness. The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in *other* environments nowadays. The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling. Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure). So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time. What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling. Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0. Go Doru, Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you. Reinout -
Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we write more emails, though, please consider the following... We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an organized fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open, professional, and widget focused. However, email's high latency tends to promote an increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :). On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce' itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held Pharo back.
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in *other* environments nowadays. The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure). So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru, Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you.
Reinout -
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
This seems like a remarkably appropriate paper to read - http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Lambda.html "Lambda, the Ultimate Political Party" - in which Kent Pitman describes events in the Lisp community that sound an awful lot like the discussions that sometimes take place in the Smalltalk community. Especially around "what is Smalltalk". frank On 31 July 2014 14:49, Andres Valloud <avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:
Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we write more emails, though, please consider the following...
We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an organized fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open, professional, and widget focused. However, email's high latency tends to promote an increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce' itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held Pharo back.
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in *other* environments nowadays. The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure). So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru, Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you.
Reinout -
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Thanks Frank! I think Kent Pitman is spot on! -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Esug-list [mailto:esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org] Im Auftrag von Frank Shearar Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 15:58 An: ESUG Mailing list Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired" This seems like a remarkably appropriate paper to read - http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Lambda.html "Lambda, the Ultimate Political Party" - in which Kent Pitman describes events in the Lisp community that sound an awful lot like the discussions that sometimes take place in the Smalltalk community. Especially around "what is Smalltalk". frank On 31 July 2014 14:49, Andres Valloud <avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:
Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we write more emails, though, please consider the following...
We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an organized fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open, professional, and widget focused. However, email's high latency tends to promote an increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce' itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held Pharo back.
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in *other* environments nowadays. The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure). So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru, Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you.
Reinout -
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On 31 Jul 2014, at 14:49, Andres Valloud <avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:
So, ideally, those interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
So should we have a BOF about this in the pub at ESUG 2014 this year? Tim
Count me in. John O'Keefe [|], CTO/Principal Smalltalk Architect Instantiations Inc On Aug 4, 2014 4:09 PM, "Tim Mackinnon" <tim.mackinnon@testitworks.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2014, at 14:49, Andres Valloud < avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:
So, ideally, those interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
So should we have a BOF about this in the pub at ESUG 2014 this year?
Tim
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Reinout Heeck <reinout@soops.nl> wrote:
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while).
In what way does GemStone/S not have “a decent namespace implementation”?
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework
Have you seen TODE (https://code.google.com/p/tode/ and https://github.com/dalehenrich/tode)?
On 7/31/2014 3:56 PM, James Foster wrote:
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Reinout Heeck <reinout@soops.nl> wrote:
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). In what way does GemStone/S not have “a decent namespace implementation”?
It's been ages since I worked with Gemstone, so the following may be way off. What I recall is that Gemstone allows per-session bindings for global names but only 'once' for all the code, IOW I cannot do visibility management with it (have 'Array' mean one thing in one level of abstraction (=package) and another thing in another level of abstraction in the same session). So it feels like there is one namespace, not multiple. (and it does not do selector namespaces if memory serves).
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework Have you seen TODE (https://code.google.com/p/tode/ and https://github.com/dalehenrich/tode)?
No, so I just watched the video and it made me cringe: here we have one of the very early Smalltalk talents *still* busy with implementing the browser, still concerning himself with combating window clutter, still biding his time with extracting code from the UI to make tool interaction and the MOP accessible to ad-hock scripting. It is a poignant example of what I meant. Compare his browser demo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4LcZ4_1Yic) that shows us how to interact with code with less mouse clicks with Bret Victors browser demo (http://vimeo.com/36579366) that shows tools to discover new ideas. R -
On Jul 31, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Reinout Heeck <reinout@soops.nl> wrote: On 7/31/2014 3:56 PM, James Foster wrote:
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Reinout Heeck <reinout@soops.nl> wrote:
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). In what way does GemStone/S not have “a decent namespace implementation”?
It's been ages since I worked with Gemstone, so the following may be way off. What I recall is that Gemstone allows per-session bindings for global names but only 'once' for all the code, IOW I cannot do visibility management with it (have 'Array' mean one thing in one level of abstraction (=package) and another thing in another level of abstraction in the same session).
Name lookup (the namespace) is applied at the time a method is compiled and is independent of the runtime session. To see this working in Pharo check out http://programminggems.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/gsoc-namespace-project/.
So it feels like there is one namespace, not multiple. (and it does not do selector namespaces if memory serves).
I’m not sure what you mean by selector namespaces, but a few years ago (as part of supporting Ruby) GemStone added the ability to have multiple method dictionaries for each class and (as part of supporting Seaside) added the ability to insert session-specific method dictionaries. -James
Reinout, I have a feeling that if we had a chance to talk that we would be in "screaming agreement." I have spent a large portion of the last 5 years helping to build new infrastructure for Smalltalk. Metacello and Filetree have made it possible for Smalltalkers to start using the more modern SCMs like git and to benefit from collaborative tools like GitHub and I think this is a _good_ thing. tODE is my take on a Smalltalk IDE built to support git/github-based development and is just another necessary (no IDE for GemStone) step along the way. I'd like to think that my work contributes to the overall effort in building "Smalltalk3.0." And I'm sorry I made you cringe:) Dale On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Reinout Heeck <reinout@soops.nl> wrote:
On 7/31/2014 3:56 PM, James Foster wrote:
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Reinout Heeck <reinout@soops.nl> wrote:
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while).
In what way does GemStone/S not have “a decent namespace implementation”?
It's been ages since I worked with Gemstone, so the following may be way off. What I recall is that Gemstone allows per-session bindings for global names but only 'once' for all the code, IOW I cannot do visibility management with it (have 'Array' mean one thing in one level of abstraction (=package) and another thing in another level of abstraction in the same session). So it feels like there is one namespace, not multiple. (and it does not do selector namespaces if memory serves).
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after
browser framework
Have you seen TODE (https://code.google.com/p/tode/ and https://github.com/dalehenrich/tode)?
No, so I just watched the video and it made me cringe: here we have one of the very early Smalltalk talents *still* busy with implementing the browser, still concerning himself with combating window clutter, still biding his time with extracting code from the UI to make tool interaction and the MOP accessible to ad-hock scripting.
It is a poignant example of what I meant.
Compare his browser demo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4LcZ4_1Yic) that shows us how to interact with code with less mouse clicks with Bret Victors browser demo (http://vimeo.com/36579366) that shows tools to discover new ideas.
R
-
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On 7/31/2014 9:56 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
Reinout,
I have a feeling that if we had a chance to talk that we would be in "screaming agreement."
We share that feeling :-) [snipped the actual content]
And I'm sorry I made you cringe:)
You didn't, the context did -- but I guess you already knew that :-) R -
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back. For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce' itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held Pharo back.
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You should not judge a community based on the existence or not of a namespace :)>
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in *other* environments nowadays. The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure). So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru, Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you.
Reinout -
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You should not judge a community based on the existence or not of a namespace :)>
Not on its own no, but as part of an (incomplete) list of symptoms? <smiley too>
Dont worry :) You only see in Pharo the top of the iceberg. We have first class variables, brand new compiler. We are prototyping on package local extensions and many more but since we want that our users continue to make business with Pharo we go step by step. Wise isn’t :)
R -
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On 31 Jul 2014, at 21:20, Stéphane Ducasse <Stephane.Ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You should not judge a community based on the existence or not of a namespace :)>
Not on its own no, but as part of an (incomplete) list of symptoms? <smiley too>
meh ObjC also does not have namespaces and no one has ever claimed that is not professional. honestly, if that’s your complain, I can just feel confident in the path we are following. Esteban
Dont worry :) You only see in Pharo the top of the iceberg. We have first class variables, brand new compiler. We are prototyping on package local extensions and many more but since we want that our users continue to make business with Pharo we go step by step. Wise isn’t :)
R -
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On Jul 31, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
The thing is, I’m not so sure that there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what it is not. For us, people with many years of ST experience, this may be the case, but for (relative) newcomers I think this is not the case. Doru’s audience and the people looking at the Pharo web site would be the latter.
By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those is that in this light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community. Whether you reckon the word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is your personal feeling. Divorce is a usual term describing the splitting of a former whole. I don't find it aggressive.
Sorry if I read more into the divorce word than what you meant to put there. But I think that the word divorce has at least a negative connotation. (I guess I am not the only one but I can of course not speak for the general public.)
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk. If it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away from some Smalltalk concept (technical or non-technical) it should be said so, and whith regards to which concept and into what differing direction. There are many ways to the future. No problem with that. Smalltalk will walk its path.
Well, there are different paths to the future, different ways to evolve towards similar - or different - goals. Pharo is choosing its own path, but that does not imply that other ST’s cannot choose similar (or different) paths. Given the audience of Doru’s talk I think it’s OK to say it like this. With more time (or web page space) this could be made more clear of course. ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
2014-07-31 12:05 GMT+02:00 Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de>:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things:
1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future 3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Well, I tried to open a smalltalk-80 image recently and it didn't work on the Pharo VM. In addition, it seems that recent Pharo images cannot run on the Xerox-D microcoded machines. So I think clearly Pharo is not Smalltalk for obvious backward compatibility issues. I love mails about this topic it really makes my day each time :-). Clement
Cheers Helge
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Dear Clément, thank you for your valuable contribution. So, what you are saying is that none of the Smalltalks around (VA Smalltalk, GemStone, Smalltalk/X, Dolphin, VisualWorks, ObjectStudio etc, pp.) is Smalltalk. Kent Beck once used the term "balkanization". The point of my email was to open eyes to not run into that behaviour! It won't help the Smalltalk community - to which I still count Pharo ... and hope you do too! Cheers Helge ________________________________ Von: Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com> An: Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> CC: "pharo-business@lists.pharo.org" <pharo-business@lists.pharo.org>; "pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr" <pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; ESUG <esug-list@lists.esug.org> Gesendet: 13:00 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014 Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired" 2014-07-31 12:05 GMT+02:00 Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de>: Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: 1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future 3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Well, I tried to open a smalltalk-80 image recently and it didn't work on the Pharo VM. In addition, it seems that recent Pharo images cannot run on the Xerox-D microcoded machines. So I think clearly Pharo is not Smalltalk for obvious backward compatibility issues. I love mails about this topic it really makes my day each time :-). Clement
Cheers Helge
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On 31 Jul 2014, at 12:05, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: Pharo is NOT Smalltalk All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
The whole thing started by the fact that there are lots of great things to do that Smalltalk did not yet do. (That are 100% in line with the *idea* of Smalltalk, and that are very natural and clearly the next step). But if we say that we are Smalltalk, then people will immediately request 100% compatibility forever. We actually had exactly that case. Someone told us that for *every* change we need to first sync with all Smalltalk Vendors and all other open source Smalltalks and only of they are ok (and implement the same at the same time) we are allowed to e.g. add a new API in Pharo core classes. Reason: “Pharo is Smalltalk, it says right so on the website”. So Pharo is Smalltalk in the sense of being a reflective, dynamic, always improving environment. It is *not* Smalltalk in the sense of a finished, non-changing artefact. Marcus
What are the actions that you make today to offer yourself a future is more interesting. No? I have students and I prefer that they find a job in “Smalltalk” than in Javascript but you can continue to talk about such important question… Sorry I do not have the time. BTW you can have a look at my 2009 Smalltalk presentation because Pharo is to reinvent Smalltalk….
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: Pharo is NOT Smalltalk All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Cheers Helge
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Hi, The official Pharo statement is clearly stated on the http://pharo.org webpage. This topic has been (re)discussed recently spawned by my original post on Pharo is Pharo: http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo You can choose to see in my words what you wish. I will choose to not fight it. I did it before and it lead nowhere. I will only state that we clearly want to position Pharo to build a future that we do not know at this point in time. Cheers, Doru Cheers, Doru On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things:
1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future 3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Cheers Helge
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
Dear Stef and Doru, what Doru is saying seems contradictory to what Stef does (or I do not understand one, or the both of you correctly): Doru says: "Pharo is not Smalltalk. Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired." Whereas Stef says "Pharo is to reinvent Smalltalk" and "I prefer that my students find a job in “Smalltalk”". From which I take that Stef sees himself and Pharo as part of the Smalltalk community. Something I had hoped to hear ;-) I am with Kent Pitman: "Smalltalk" is not technically defined but by the (sub-)communities and their values. The development of Smalltalk will never stop, each dialect may take its own path yet it will stay "Smalltalk" regardless of what you name it. Only if one thinks that being part of the Smalltalk community doesn't serve him/her well he/she will leave it. I don't see how Pharo and its community did a departure from the Smalltalk values and its overall community. And I hope this will stay that way. Cheers Helge Von: Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> CC: "pharo-business@lists.pharo.org" <pharo-business@lists.pharo.org>; "pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr" <pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; ESUG <esug-list@lists.esug.org> Gesendet: 17:05 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014 Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired" Hi, The official Pharo statement is clearly stated on the http://pharo.org/ webpage. This topic has been (re)discussed recently spawned by my original post on Pharo is Pharo: http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo You can choose to see in my words what you wish. I will choose to not fight it. I did it before and it lead nowhere. I will only state that we clearly want to position Pharo to build a future that we do not know at this point in time. Cheers, Doru Cheers, Doru On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote: Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: 1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future 3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it. Cheers Helge
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
-- http://www.tudorgirba.com/ "Every thing has its own flow"
+1
Hi,
The official Pharo statement is clearly stated on the http://pharo.org webpage.
This topic has been (re)discussed recently spawned by my original post on Pharo is Pharo: http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo
You can choose to see in my words what you wish. I will choose to not fight it. I did it before and it lead nowhere. I will only state that we clearly want to position Pharo to build a future that we do not know at this point in time.
Cheers, Doru
And this is not like we did not announce it since 2008 :) Stef
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things:
1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future 3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Cheers Helge
For me, Pharo is very nice Smalltalk dialect, and "Pharo is not Smalltalk", is just marketing speak for me. As I try to valuate things accordingly to what they are and not marketing, I can live quite nice with "Pharo is not Smalltalk", since, as I said I like Pharo Smalltalk pretty much. Thanks guys for hard work! Davorin Ruševljan http://www.cloud208.com
:-) Von: Esug-list [mailto:esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org] Im Auftrag von Davorin Rusevljan Gesendet: Freitag, 1. August 2014 14:16 An: Helge Nowak Cc: ESUG; pharo-business@lists.pharo.org Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired" On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de<mailto:hknowak@yahoo.de>> wrote: Dear Pharoers, I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: 1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk 1. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future 1. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it. Cheers Helge For me, Pharo is very nice Smalltalk dialect, and "Pharo is not Smalltalk", is just marketing speak for me. As I try to valuate things accordingly to what they are and not marketing, I can live quite nice with "Pharo is not Smalltalk", since, as I said I like Pharo Smalltalk pretty much. Thanks guys for hard work! Davorin Ruševljan http://www.cloud208.com
I like different Smalltalks, and I also like Pharo. I'm not sure if they are different, and even whether I care, However I do care about preserving the energy in respective communities - and in particular the iterative improvements I see happening in Pharo (which is not to downplay things happening in other Smalltalks either). I really want to see Pharo continue unhindered by past convictions, and from their recent track record I trust them to keep forging on. Thanks guys! Tim Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Aug 2014, at 02:16 pm, Davorin Rusevljan <davorin.rusevljan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote: Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things: Pharo is NOT Smalltalk All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Cheers Helge
For me, Pharo is very nice Smalltalk dialect, and "Pharo is not Smalltalk", is just marketing speak for me. As I try to valuate things accordingly to what they are and not marketing, I can live quite nice with "Pharo is not Smalltalk", since, as I said I like Pharo Smalltalk pretty much.
Thanks guys for hard work!
Davorin Ruševljan http://www.cloud208.com
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
drush66 wrote
"Pharo is not Smalltalk", is just marketing speak for me
Bingo. It's a sound bite, which by definition presents one teeny-tiny side of an issue in a way that we think will bring the most interest to Pharo. Debating how "true" it is, or whether anyone should be insulted, is as unproductive this time as it was in the thread from April with 98 posts (http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-td4756805.html). The only potentially helpful discussion would be whether it's good marketing, but the consensus among those of us in the Pharo community with experience sharing to the outside programming community is that once most programmers hear "Smalltalk" either: <overdramatic list> - their eyes glaze over - they can't hear anything else you say over their own laughter, or - you take so long explaining that "'Smalltalk' is an idea, but most of the time people say 'Smalltalk' meaning 'Smalltalk-80', which is..." you're out of time </overdramatic list> Also, as programmers, who are notoriously terrible marketing people, it might be time to try something bold, turning our first instinct - which has been to hold dearly to marketing Smalltalk as such for 34 years - on its head... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-is-Smalltalk-inspired-tp4771115p4771904.html Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
participants (19)
-
Andres Valloud -
Clément Bera -
Dale Henrichs -
Davorin Rusevljan -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Frank Shearar -
Helge Nowak -
James Foster -
Johan Fabry -
John O'Keefe -
Marcus Denker -
Niall Ross -
Nowak, Helge -
Reinout Heeck -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tim Mackinnon -
Tim Mackinnon -
Tudor Girba