Fair enough. But to me the distinction is like Scheme and Common Lisp. They're dialects of Lisp. Other example is Racket, that tries to sell itself as a superior Lisp/Scheme, as TypeScript tries to sell itself as a superset of JavaScript :)
To me, they're all Lisp. As Pharo IS Smalltalk. Smalltalk as a moniker, not as a particular spec. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo 2014-04-28 15:24 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > I do not claim that Pharo does not look like a Smalltalk now. It does as it > shares quite a bit with the model. But, I do claim that it already has > distinctive characteristics that make it go away from a "classic" Smalltalk. > And there will be more and more in the future. > > So, what is better as a communication strategy: > - to say that Pharo is "a Smalltalk with traits, modular compiler, slots and > moldable debugger, ... (more to come in this list)", or > - to say that Pharo "is a modern Smalltalk-inspired system?" > ? > > We are not fooling anyone. We simply state that while we respect everything > that Smalltalk stands for, Pharo will not be bound to it. This is not being > disrespectful, it is simply creating the premise to look at how else we can > invent the future. And there is so much to invent there. > > Doru > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Sebastian Sastre > <sebast...@flowingconcept.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> >> That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and language >> that is Smalltalk-inspired. >> >> We do not need to apologize because Pharo was never dead :). >> >> >> nice joke >> >> Talking of Smalltalk-inspired…. Ruby is that, and is very successful BTW >> >> So, yeah, we are aware that it would be incredibly lame to try to fool >> ourselves and the world by trying to sell the idea that Pharo is not a >> Smalltalk. >> > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"
