This is tiring. I like reading those blog posts.
And Pharo is not exactly Smalltalk, so what? Syntax close enough, principles close enough. What is there to win in arguing about this point? I have been not using Pharo for a while commercially, because, well, Pharo is a hard sell to companies. Hence doing Scala, Java, and other "less productive" environments. But with Eclipse Collections, Java 8 feels quite close when coupled with something like IntelliJ Ultimate. >From where I stand this looks like a battle in kindergarten. Yawn. Phil ᐧ On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM horrido <horrido.hobb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of > other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be. > > Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk > (which > eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with > unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only) > are. > > Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less > and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk. > > So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise > Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should > cement > the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a > modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang). > > Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains > Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo > evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes: > > 1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception. > > 2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of > messages. > > 3. The live coding environment. > > 4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability. > > I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining > qualities. > Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family. > > And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because > Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can > be > a family. > > However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >
