So, I’m going to say this and then I will close this thread: Regardless what you think about Pharo and its heritage and how it should be called, this is a list to talk about this particular artefact that is Pharo. You can say: There is Smalltalk, and there is Pharo who is a part of it. That’s fine. Then let it phrase it like this: this list is not to talk about the whole Smalltalk universe but this particular implementation. In fact, this is a list for "pharo users” (hence its name), to let them share experiences and ask for help.
And this is why is “off-topic” anything that is talking about other stuff. Now, everybody can do as they please (I will not enter on criticising other’s work here, they can do what they believe is the best). But they cannot do as they please in the house of others. And this is the house of Pharo Users. So, the rules are: we talk about *pharo usage* here. We can off-topic in some way, as long as the off-topic is restricted. And that’s all. Esteban Ps: again, *is not the point to argue about what you think is Pharo or not*. Please stop discussing that. We (the board) do not care about that. We (the board) decided a lot of time ago that we will take the Smalltalk inheritance in the Alan Kay’s way: we do not do “Smalltalk", we bootstrap something new, that may resemble Smalltalk (whatever that is), that may share a lot of things with Smalltalk (even syntax and some libraries), but it is still other thing. Pps: It was me who said to Horrido “you are welcome here, as long as your campaign does not eats the whole list” (word more, word less, this is what I said). Well, now this is eating the whole list, and it has to end. > On 6 Feb 2020, at 00:13, TedVanGaalen <ted...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, Esteban, > > maybe I was a bit harsh, in a sense you're right too, > However it becomes blurred then wat Smalltalk really is. > (e.g. I recommend Pharo as Smalltalk to others) > > I would prefer -but who am I- > that all Smalltalk dialects should implement > the ANSI standard as a minimum and at least on > that level stay compatible. > New developments should be built on top of that. > and get incorporated in the ANSI standard at certain points in time. > So that everybody on this planet can work with one Smalltalk. > That makes sense, don't you agree? > > They came very close to that with PLs like COBOL, ANSI C etc. > > Standardization is industrial. No need > to further explain this I guess. > > The f. devil lives in the details, as they say, > and it is exactly those little differences > that makes it very hard to port packages > from one Smalltalk dialect to another. > > In the current situation, that is where everybody wants to > go their own unique way, this has the consequence that > if one Smalltalk dialect disappears (e.g. Squeak, Pharo, > Visualworks, whatever) this would render packages > with often tons of work(e.g. Roassal ?) > worthless because they don't load/work in other Smalltalk > implementations/dialects without rewriting and retesting > the package again. This should not be the case. > > Again, I am impressed by Pharo and really like it. > but for me it goes too far to say that Pharo isn't Smalltalk. > > As a user, I edit classes methods etc in exactly the same > way (syntax) as in most other Smalltalk dialects. > If you would take out the Smalltalk from Pharo all is left > are a few bolts and nuts rendered useless: nothing > to mount it on. > > (Still the differences are currently not that big: > if I can file in st files from Squeak from 2010 and the > only thing I had to change was a datetime property) > (yet another reason I don't use traits is to remain compatible > as much as possible between different Smalltalk implementations) > > my 4 cents. :o) > Regards, thank you. > TedvG > btw > Hard to convince people about this: > Also. nothing should be deprecated. > Old sources should remain compatible. > (Not like in Swift, where I had to rewrite parts of my > apps nearly every year because of deprecation fever) > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >
