I understand. My apologies for contributing to one of those days.
For me that day was while I was reading this thread and watching Doru
and Sean arguing with Eliot. It almost made me want to go back to
Squeak. Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with Squeak.
They were firmly arguing that Pharo is NOT Smalltalk. They contend that
making changes that make it different than Smalltalk-80 make it not
Smalltalk.
http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo
Their contentions were not refuted. I wanted to put forth my
understanding and opinion that Pharo is a Smalltalk.
And then you reply stating of course everybody here knows Pharo is
Smalltalk. But that is exactly what Doru is arguing against.
If Pharo is going to distance itself from Smalltalk and be consistent
about it, then every Pharo reference to Smalltalk in the image or
website or wikipedia unless historical should be changed.
This inconsistency makes Pharo look bad.
Jimmie
On 04/30/2014 01:58 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Some days a I really would love not to love smalltalk...
On 30 Apr 2014, at 20:52, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com
<mailto:jlhouc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
But that is the point. This kind of marketing is false. It denies who
we are.
As soon as they look at Pharo. Learn to use and then learn that Pharo
is a Smalltalk and that we are liars.
Did keeping silent about Pharo help in the Reddit thread. No.
Did the current marketing explain well what Pharo is. No.
Read the thread. People were confused.
And regardless of the marketing attempt, the fact of Pharo being a
Smalltalk did not remain suppressed. So therefore, those who were
closed minded against Smalltalk have then been alerted, and they can
close their minds. Attempting to not make it plain was an abject failure.
People who understand the value of Smalltalk and of a modern open
source implementation will come.
I guess none of the commercial Smalltalks are alive? Nobody knows of
them. They are going broke?
Gemstone, VisualWorks, ...
What is this new thing that people are using?
Clojure based on Lisp. Not new.
Python 23 years old.
Lua 21
Ruby 19
Clojure based on Lisp but adding modern functional features disproves
any thought that an old language with lots of baggage can't attract
new users.
From the Clojure home page. """Clojure is a dialect of Lisp"""
They embrace their heritage and are better for it. They also detail
their value proposition and being a Lisp is part of it.
I am all agreeable to attracting people to our community. But
falseness isn't the way.
Not everybody is closed minded and ignorant. Those that are we can
wait until they are not.
But Pharo has to offer people the proper value proposition. When it
does, I believe it will attract sincere people. When the value of
Pharo meets the needs of the people, it will attact the appropriate
people. But until then, we can market it however we want and they
will not care. Right now Pharo is working hard to reach that point
that it can offer them something they will value. For some it already
does. For others not yet. That not yet, it a bigger obstacle than
Pharo being marketed as a Smalltalk and telling the truth.
We need to embrace being a Smalltalk and sell our value proposition
in terms that mean something to somebody who doesn't already get
Smalltalk. We failed at that. Too vague, too ambiguous. It confused
some of the Reddit people. People to whom we are supposedly intending
to attract and market to.
Jimmie
On 04/30/2014 01:22 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Again… you are missing the point.
nobody here doubts Pharo is a Smalltalk.
nobody outside our small world believes Smalltalk is alive.
And yes… you can argue all what you want. But you are scratching
where it does not itch.
We choose not to *market* Pharo as a Smalltalk, because each time
someone outside our small world hear about Smalltalk believes that
is a long time dead language. No matter how much effort you put into
explain that is not true, people will not believe it. And people is
always more willing to try something new than something old (except
in the case of wines and fine alcohols, of course).
So… we prefer to track people to our community and let them notice
wat WE ALL KNOW: Smalltalk is not dead, and Pharo is a proof of that.
Esteban
On 30 Apr 2014, at 20:07, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com
<mailto:jlhouc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
In the Smalltalk heritage. Pharo comes from Smalltalk 80.
But we don't want to be stuck in 1980. We want Smalltalk 2014.
Smalltalk 80 was modern for 1980. They didn't want to be stuck in
1976. ...
And Smalltalk isn't unique to this. Is C11 not a C because it is
not K&R, or C89, C90 or C99?
Is Python 3.x not Python because it is not fully compatible with
Python 2.x which is dominant?
Pharo wants to be a modern Smalltalk able to empower people in this
era to do things that we do in 2014. We need appropriate modularity
in the image. We need the image to be clean. We need to learn the
lessons we as Smalltalker's have learned in the last 24 years and
apply them to Pharo Smalltalk. And I believe that is much of what
Pharo is attempting to do.
Noel in his talk said that Smalltalk doesn't play well with others.
And with Pharo it still isn't as easy as in other languages like
Python, Ruby, Lua, etc. But with NativeBoost we have a tool which
enables us to do much. And NativeBoost isn't finished. I believe
when NativeBoost is fully mature and the vm/image has sufficiently
changed to enable us. We will have one of the best plays with
others well stories.
I know in the app I am writing, NativeBoost's current condition
struggled with my library. It often crashed. This library has to
deal with a C Thread. Which is why I am spending my current time
studying C.
Whether or not the Smalltalk Inspired crowd likes it, the moment
some else declares that Pharo is a Smalltalk the Smalltalk Inspired
marketing is tanked. The cat is out of the bag.
The Reddit thread demonstrates this. People went to the new
website. They read the current marketing and were confused. What is
this Pharo thing. And in the thread it comes out that Pharo is a
Smalltalk. Lets make that clear up front. Then lets define what it
means to be Pharo Smalltalk.
Here is an unfortunate quote from that thread.
"""
emaringolo 1 point an hour ago
Pharo is aimed to do serious/business development, and it's been
reshaping itself since its conception (several years ago when it
forked from Squeak).
It doesn't want to have any backward or "historic" compatibility
with other Smalltalks.
You can see its changelogs and the roadmap for future versions to
see how it is different, and how it will be different.
"""
This makes it sound like Pharo wants remove compatibility simply
for the sake of not being a Smalltalk. As opposed to what I believe
Esteban meant. And yes I understand that English is not his native
language, and there are many for whom it is, who still use it
poorly. What I believe he meant, is that Pharo will not be
constrained by backward compatibility. If a change or feature that
is of value to Pharo Smalltalk. That feature will be done even if
it means breaking backward compatibility with other Smalltalk 80
based Smalltalks. We are moving forward. But this does not
invalidate Pharo being a Smalltalk. As has been stated before,
breaking changes happened in Smalltalk 76 and 80.
Smalltalk has a wonderful heritage. It is not without its issues.
However the good of Smalltalk is enormous. Take a look at this chart
http://exploringdata.github.io/vis/programming-languages-influence-network/
Smalltalk is a big influence in the history of programming. This is
something worth being a part of. Be proud of it.
Pharo needs to define what one vision of a modern Smalltalk is. Let
us educate people of what our vision for Pharo Smalltalk is. And
guess what folks its 2014. Before long it wont be. And before long
the vision of Pharo 2014 will no longer be any more modern than
Smalltalk 80. But neither Smalltalk 80 nor Pharo 3.0 constrain what
it means to be Smalltalk. Smalltalk inspires vision and inspires
people to do things which change the present and the future. Lets
build on that heritage and take it forward. What does a modern
Smalltalk snapshot 2014 mean. Lets educate and communicate. Others
(non-Smalltalkers) don't get to define what Smalltalk is. We do.
Let us learn from them what they think Smalltalk is. Where they are
wrong, educate them. Where they are right and we have an issue.
Let's learn a lesson and improve our Smalltalk.
Computer science/art is young. This is a journey. Lets make it a
good one.
Jimmie
On 04/30/2014 11:12 AM, p...@highoctane.be wrote:
Pharo := Smalltalk ++
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin
<jlhouc...@gmail.com <mailto: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
<http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#%21/%7EPharo>
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
