On 04/28/2014 11:12 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
… more a Smalltalk one using Pharo:
MountainWest RubyConf 2014
Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalk”
Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. It seems like it
should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar Object-Oriented structures, it
even has blocks. But everything is so slightly different, from the programming
environment, to the 1-based arrays, to the simple syntax. Using Smalltalk will
make you look at familiar constructs with new eyes. We’ll show you how to get
started on Smalltalk, and walk through some sample code. Live coding may be
involved. You’ll never look at objects the same way again.
http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-smalltalk
In this thread and many others there is this debate as to whether Pharo
is a Smalltalk or is Smalltalk Inspired.
I find the Smalltalk Inspired arguments to be unpersuasive. To be
Smalltalk Inspired is to say that you are not a Smalltalk. It is to say
that Pharo is not Smalltalk but inspired by it.
I find that reasoning patently false.
First of all everything in Pharo begins from a Smalltalk image. It comes
from Squeak Smalltalk which comes from Apple Smalltalk. etc.
Pharo has an isA relationship with Smalltalk, not an isInspiredBy
relationship. It may change and add features, but as has been stated
before, Smalltalk isn't a static idea or artifact. It has always been a
dynamic live environment in which to change itself into something it
believed to be better. By removing features and by growing them.
Smalltalk (an instance of SmalltalkImage), SmalltalkImage,
SmalltalkImageTest, SmalltalkEditingState are all part of the Pharo
Smalltalk image.
The Pharo image is a Smalltalk image. It says so inside the image itself.
Where are we hosting are source code? Would that be SmalltalkHub?
Lets see something.
http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo
Okay, Pharo might be doing things that would break compatibility with
other Smalltalks. And that causes some people pain and grief. However
that does not make Pharo not a Smalltalk. Was Smalltalk 76 constrained
by backward compatibility with Smalltalk 72? Or Smalltalk 80 with either
Smalltalk 76 or 72? No!
Is it a requirement of Pharo to be constrained by other Smalltalk
implementations in order to still be a Smalltalk. No!
And then there is the argument of the outside worlds perception of
Smalltalk. Since when does the perception of the outside world change
whether or not Pharo is a Smalltalk? If the outside world changed their
mind and decided Smalltalk is wonderful, does Pharo then all of the
sudden become a Smalltalk? Ugh!
We are who we are. Our roots are our roots. Pharo should be happy and
proud to be a Smalltalk. A Smalltalk that is continuing the heritage of
innovation. A Smalltalk that is continuing the heritage of inventing the
future.
We have decided to be marketing driven. Marketing is important. But
marketing should determine who we are. And we should engage in
disingenuous marketing practice trying to hide our roots or who we are.
Why do we things distancing ourselves from Smalltalk advantages us? Just
because there are lots of uneducated people who have the wrong idea
about Smalltalk. Clojure embraced its Lisp heritage and is thriving.
Lisp has every bit as much baggage.
This talk which inspired this thread called Pharo as Smalltalk. He said,
Pharo Smalltalk throughout the presentation. So in the mind of the
presenter and now in the mind of the audience at the conference and of
the video, Pharo is a Smalltalk. So now are we to go about re-educating
all these people that Pharo is not a Smalltalk but is rather Smalltalk
Inspired?
We don't require the outside world's permission. We don't need their
approval. We would like to have a reasonable and sufficient number of
them to catch the Pharo Smalltalk vision and become a part of the
family. Do we really desire everybody. No. Do we desire those people who
are so closed minded that the mention of Smalltalk closes their mind
because of their ignorance. I don't think so.
Smalltalk is different. Pharo is Smalltalk and is different. There will
be those who don't like it because of the baggage they bring, not the
baggage we bring. And that is okay. All of us think different. People
need to embrace what empowers them and quit complaining about what
empowers somebody else. We need to embrace empowering people who
understand Smalltalk not the people who don't get it for whatever
reason. Let those people go and be empowered somewhere else. We and they
will both be better off.
Feel free to shred and destroy my arguments. I am proud to use
Smalltalk. And currently Pharo is the Smalltalk I am choosing to use.
Currently I am studying C. A C library is required for my project and in
order to use Pharo and use this library, I need sufficient C skills.
My opinion unapologetically.
And if the powers that be who are in charge of Pharo decide that
Smalltalk (in name) is baggage and Pharo is not Smalltalk. And that
marketing Pharo as Smalltalk is bad. Then please be honest and change
all references in the image of Smalltalk to Pharo. Also change
SmalltalkHub to PharoHub or SmalltalkInspiredHub.
If if not, be sincere and embrace Pharo Smalltalk.
Long live Smalltalk.
Jimmie
