I don't think conformance or non-conformance to ANSI is important. This is a red herring.
If Pharo becomes mainstream, nobody will care about ANSI conformance. Ditto for any other flavour of Smalltalk. > Pharo is Pharo, a Smalltalk descendant with its own life And VisualWorks doesn't have its own life? How about VA Smalltalk? This is sophistry. cedreek wrote >> Le 5 févr. 2020 à 19:50, horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > > 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 >> -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
