I find myself saying Pharo Smalltalk and Github marks our code as
Smalltalk.

Which is fine.

"Pharo is Pharo" indeed.

But the contents of the Blue Book still holds true.

What I do know is that I enjoy programming in Pharo more than with anything
else.
VisualWorks may have more power but I can't stand its UI.

And who can beat such an all MIT codebase that one can actually make sense
of?

At the moment I am running Pharo every single day for all day long and it
is a great recurring  experience.

Long live Pharo!

And to hell with that Smalltalk or not thing.

Phil

Le 6 sept. 2014 15:32, "Sergi Reyner" <sergi.rey...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> 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] 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to