> Le 5 févr. 2020 à 19:50, horrido <horrido.hobb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Yes, these are two completely different issues... > > - Pharo is Smalltalk
As you state, you use Smalltalk as the superset of all Smalltalk descendance, what Sven call ‘Concept’ and this is true to me. But, as I understand it (I’m not a board member), if called « Smalltalk », then some people will ask (and debate) so that Pharo has to be conform to ANSI Smalltalk standard (the standard approved on May 19, 1998). Pharo is a fork of squeak and can be seen as Smalltalk-80 grand-parent, Squeak being the parent ^^. Pharo wants to emancipate as all child. Squeak actually had/have this recurring question already [1]. Pharo *from the start* decided not to be ANSI compliant as it is orthogonal to the envisioned progress/changes (Trait are one first example and this really was a hard discussion and probably what settled the fork). I think Pharo founders wanted to avoid flaming wars again on design and architectural decisions by trying to squeeze this aspect (not a pure smalltalk so do no expect ANSI compliance) and now, as a result, we get this backlashing thread where people feel Pharo don’t assume Smalltalk heritage. Life is often ironic :-s. Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life, and even if they share lots of the same ADN. My 2 cents, Cédrick [1] https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172 <https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/172> > > - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum > > I get it. But as I point out here > <http://forum.world.st/Fuzzy-Thinking-in-Smalltalk-tp5111111p5111191.html> > , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hope that the Pharo community is > willing to participate in evangelizing Smalltalk. > > If there is truly another avenue that is as effective, I'm all ears. > > > > Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >>> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido < > >> horrido.hobbies@ > >> > wrote: >>> >>> It would be like trying to deny that Clojure, Scheme, and Racket are not >>> LISP. Only an imbecile would claim they're not. >> >> I am pretty sure the mailing lists of Clojure, Scheme or Racket don't want >> you to go there to discuss Common Lisp or Emacs' Lisp or to talk about >> general lisp revivals. >> >> Especially, they would not want you tell them what they should or can't do >> based on their history. > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >
