Jimmie, >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 03/05/2016 12:57 PM, Ben Coman wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> On 05 Mar 2016, at 18:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stef, >>>> >>>>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the >>>>> same. >>>>> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum? >>>>> Do you think that people do not know how to count? >>>>> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than >>>>> python, java, c#, lua, ... >>>>> >>>>> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our >>>>> language and do node.js. >>>>> Seriously. >>>>> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can >>>>> tell you. >>>>> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a >>>>> good opportunity. >>>>> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility >>>>> of our system >>>>> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something. >>>>> Afterall I may be wrong. >>>>> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay >>>>> with old friends >>>>> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole >>>>> that does not want to >>>>> promote smalltalk. >>>> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk name. >>>> I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to refute >>>> false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating it with >>>> cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my points >>>> about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not perceived >>>> negatively? >>>> >>>> >>>> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire >>>> and respect your efforts, Stéphane, in developing, organizing and >>>> supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about >>>> something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing >>>> is to deny Pharo is Smalltalk. >>>> >>>> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are >>>> important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a >>>> spade, and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called >>>> Smalltalk, and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is >>>> inspired by Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing. >>> Pharo was started because a certain situation existed in the Squeak >>> community that blocked progress for a group of people that had another >>> vision. Pharo was started and exists to fulfil that grand vision, a vision >>> that is clearly rooted in Smalltalk history, but goes beyond that. >>> >>> If you want to focus on words, your sentence 'Pharo is Smalltalk' is not so >>> innocent or politically free, as you know very well, even if it looks like >>> factually correct (it is BTW). >>> >>> We say it differently because of what I just wrote, because we want to be >>> free of backwards compatibility (if necessary), because we want to have a >>> larger future than maintaining something old (even though we absolutely >>> respect and acknowledge it). Yes, it is a bit of a play of words, but not >>> without reason. >>> >>> Here is one writeup that tries to describe the same idea: >>> >>> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo >>> >>> But the best documents are the Pharo vision documents. >> >> The counter argument is that there was Smalltalk-71, -72, -76, -78, >> -80. Some of these were distinctly different from the last. So >> Smalltalk was an *evolving* system. Why can't it be so again!? and >> be Smalltalk-Renew, Smalltalk-Next, Smalltalk-Evolved, Smalltalk-16, >> Smalltalk-P16 or Smalltalk-P5 "Pharo 5". >> >> As long as the emphasis is on Pharo being an *evolution* of Smalltalk >> (which is not in doubt), I think we cover all bases - stimulating the >> interest of newcomers and/or detractors of old, as well as Smalltalk >> stalwarts without being constrained by the past. As much as we might >> want to promote Pharo being separate from Smalltalk (which I believe >> was a reasonable strategy to establish identity at the time of the >> fork from Squeak), Smalltalk is always going to be there for anyone >> who scratches beneath the surface and they end up thinking "Oh its >> *just* Smalltalk" anyway. So this remains the "elephant in the room", >> *subtly* undermining of our marketing. Its the sort of weakness that >> can be better to hit head on as "Smalltalk-Evolved" (since "Evolved" >> is a term with positive connotations in the gaming / sci-fi >> communities.) >> >> cheers -ben > > I have had this argument also from the pro-Smalltalk side of things. What > persuaded me to be more liberal and permissive in the argument pro-Pharo is > simply this. All of the Smalltalks above were done be the creators of > Smalltalk. They had ownership and rights to the name Smalltalk and the > directions it had the freedom to pursue. The creators of Pharo do not have > such ownership to the Smalltalk history, heritage or name. Do they have the > rights to say that the direction they take Pharo is the direction of > Smalltalk? What if Squeak diverges in a different direction? Who is to say > which is the standard bearer for the name of Smalltalk. > > Caution says no. Pharo doesn't have that right. The creators of Smalltalk did > not hand off the stewardship of Smalltalk to Pharo. I am happy to be proven > that Pharo has legitimate rights to carry on the name of Smalltalk in the > directions it goes, regardless of what they may be.
AFAIA no one has trademarked Smalltalk, only Smalltalk-80. The situation seems to me analogous to programming languages being likened to vehicles, the dynamic languages to flying vehicles, Smalltalk to jet plane and Pharo to an Airbus 380. There is no way anyone is going to prevent someone calling a jet plane a jet plane. No one other than Airbus can call a plant they produce an Airbus. It dies not make sense to say an Airbus 380 is not a jet plane. > Just one opinion of someone who is both pro-Smalltalk and pro-Pharo. And > strongly understands words have meaning. > > Shalom. > > Jimmie > > >
