Pharo := Smalltalk ++
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
