On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > >> On 05 Mar 2016, at 19:57, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> 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 > > Really, Ben, are you suggesting we stop calling it Pharo ? > Come on, let's be serious.
Thats not a serious question. Pharo could only be called Pharo. Now just to be clear, I sit in the middle on this. I never experienced the constraint felt before the fork from Squeak, and on the flip side I have no big history with Smalltalk. To me, Pharo is just Pharo and there is nothing to stop us developing the system how we like. However I see the attempt to distance Pharo from past problems by branding with a fresh coat of paint false economy. People *will* scratch beneath the surface and the only way to address their perceived problems with Smalltalk is to address them - one by one. The essence of dispute is: on the one hand... A1. Future development without outside constraint A2. Avoid the perception of being an antiquated system and on the other hand... B1. Stronger recognition of our Smalltalk lineage I just don't see these as incompatible. B1 might be addressed in a small way by a simple changing in language from "inspired by" to "derived from". I think its a premature optimisation to be concerned that this might impinge on A1. The Pharo "way" is well established. For A2, I read Stef's reply "we want that people that learned smalltalk in the 90 do not discard Pharo because..." and understand my view of this is limited from my corner of the world. But I contend that while you may get these people in through the door, when they look around their next thought is "Hey, this *is* Smalltalk" and all their old prejudices reassert and they walk away without a further thought. I just feel its better overall for us to be upfront and say "Historically Smalltalk didn't do XX very well, and here is how we've fixed it!" That way, their old prejudice is actually what hooks them to come have a look. To use a strange analogy, its like those superstars who screw up really badly, then > > What makes Pharo different is this: you (and so many others) came to this > community as a stranger (for us), started contributing in various ways, we > saw that you were serious/good and we accepted your work, letting you work on > very fundamental code that had the potential to break everything. There is > simply no way that you could have done or be allowed to do that in any other > Smalltalk, let alone the place where we forked from. It is as simple as that. > That is why it is called Pharo, why we say Pharo is yours. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to contribute. I'm very glad that Pharo is all that it is, but this openness is more about Pharo's vision and mission and less about its roots. But you should know, I came to Pharo because I was looking for Smalltalk (from the whisper of a taste 15 years ago.) If it wasn't for that, (to my detriment) I might never have arrived. Perhaps this colours my perspective. cheers -ben > >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> Le 5/3/16 02:18, Eliot Miranda a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> SciPharo? Not so great news from my POV. >>>>>>> What is so much pharo specific in this library? >>>>>>> Is Smalltalk scientific community large enough for yet another split? >>>>>> Split of what? Let us be tagged with a name of 1980 and die in peace. >>>>>> Yes this looks like a >>>>>> smart move. >>>>>> There are just Python and R and Javascript around (not talking about >>>>>> ruby and swift) >>>>>> so this is a great move. We are not the cobol of object-oriented >>>>>> programming!! >>>>>> >>>>>> When I read sentiments like this it makes me want to leave the >>>>>> community. I find it so offensive that the Pharo community uses >>>>>> Smalltalk but wants to distance itself. It feels like theft or massive >>>>>> disrespect for the inventors of the language, or a complete lack of >>>>>> gratitude. >>>>>> >>>>>> C is older than Smalltalk and no one says "C is the cobol of low-level >>>>>> imperative languages". List is much older than C but no one wants to >>>>>> rename Lisp because it is perceived as old. >>>>>> >>>>>> Smalltalk is a beautiful name, carefully chosen to differentiate and >>>>>> identify the system as different, not arrogant, not hieroglyphic. >>>>>> Further, Smalltalkl /is/ different and distinctive materially. Why >>>>>> anyone would be ashamed of that incredible heritage and pervasive >>>>>> influence is beyond me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Offended, >>>>>> Eliot > >
