Tudor Girba-2 wrote > There is a point of view from which one could say that > Pharo is Smalltalk by seeing Smalltalk as a movement, rather than specific > implementation. Unfortunately, everyone else thinks of Smalltalk as a > specific language, or set of languages with specific environments that > typically look old enough to not be relevant anymore.
Yes! This is a tower of babel argument. For almost every programmer alive, Smaltalk = Smalltalk 80 -> Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired For us, Smaltalk = "experimental Dynabook software that bootstraps itself (ideally every 4 years)" -> Pharo is Smalltalk 109. So it's a question of who you're marketing to. Since we're marketing to non-Smalltalkers (quite wise since 16% market penetration is the tipping point [1], and we're not there yet), clearly "Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired" is the thing to say. It's not any more or less true than the latter, just more useful in its context. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756891.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
