> > I don't think conformance or non-conformance to ANSI is important. This is a > red herring.
You think... it was important in lots of past discussions that is at the end pure waste of energy as, unsurprisingly, this thread. > > If Pharo becomes mainstream, nobody will care about ANSI conformance. Ditto > for any other flavour of Smalltalk. Yes... if... For now it’s not. > >> 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. Yes but they are more like uncles ^^, eventually first cousins but clearly not brothers or sisters (this last sentence engages only my opinion and is again some sort of metaphors) ;-) Side note: that’d be fun to do a genealogy tree for the Smalltalk family. Maybe that could lower the noise on such subjects. I’ll give it a go. Just found this slide from Oscar Nierstrasz Cheers, Cédrick > > > > 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 >
