In my opinion, this dialect thing is getting increasingly silly. And confusing. And silly.
2014-09-06 10:01 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>: > 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 > <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 > > > > > > >
