yes… 99% of the time Pharo and Squeak will be compatible. we share the vm and a large part of the codebase. but libraries are slowly diverging so you might find that what works in the one does not works automatically in the other.
but again… my point is that all smalltalks are dialects… there is no such thing as a reference implementation :) Esteban On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:54, PBKResearch <pe...@pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote: > I don’t know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many > practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am using > an application (Todd Blanchard’s HTMCSS parser and validator) which was > originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin > Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeak’s left-arrow assignment > with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak repository on > smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now working perfectly > with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were developing such a > package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the Zinc library for the > input of web pages, and that might cause portability problems. Similarly, if > you develop something with an elaborate user interface in Pharo, you may find > that the UI code does not port easily (or at all). But the core language of > Pharo (and the language in which the libraries are written) is definitely > Smalltalk. > > In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves > Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard Smalltalk. > So where does the ‘have to make it compatible’ come from? > > Peter Kenny > > From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-boun...@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of > kilon alios > Sent: 05 September 2014 19:46 > To: Any question about pharo is welcome > Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk! > > AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it > forks form. > > You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to > smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of > Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , > I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 > friendly. > > I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how > to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :) > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: > There is a long story about all that. > > But to be short: > - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other > Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80s… > - we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible. > > So yeah > > On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayur...@kathe.in> wrote: > > > hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the > > posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but > > instead a dialect! > > > > is it true? > > > > that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to > > other smalltalk-80 systems! > > > > hmnn... > > > > ~mayuresh > > > > >
