> On 7 Feb 2022, at 09:10, contac...@kathe.in wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 07, 2022 08:57 CET, Marcus Denker
> <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 7 Feb 2022, at 08:41, contac...@kathe.in wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello Marcus,
>> >
>> > Thanks for responding with thorough details, but I'm not such a good OO
>> > programmer, so what I need to know is;
>> > Will we be able to continue developing with Pharo using the same old
>> > Smalltalk-like syntax? Or, will there be major changes some time in the
>> > future? Like how (I think) "_" from Squeak was replaced with ":=" in Pharo!
>> >
>> := is I think even ANSI Standard, or not?
>>
>> There are no plans for syntactical changes…
>>
>> But of course: The *goal* of Pharo is not to be Smalltalk80.
>>
>> I have to admit I kind of misunderstood Squeak back then…
>>
>> I really thought the idea if was to take ST80 as a startingoint “to invent
>> the future”…
>> I still like that idea, I have to say… to me what fascinates me is how to
>> take something
>> that is as of a great idea as ST80 and improve it… for example just consider
>> the resources (in terms
>> of memory or processing power or networking) we have today vs. 1978.
>>
>> The “let’s through it all away and start from scratch” approach is not
>> great, either… as you need something to buld
>> upon. And: as soon as you finish that “better” system, you would have the
>> same problem: you would be stuck with
>> a “finished” system, while the world continues to evolve.
>>
>> It is a real interesting research question: How an you build Systems that
>> can evolve over a long time ?
>
> Systems which evolve over time need to have a very tiny core which is
> supremely malleable.
> For one, I would start with a "Forth" and add an object-system to it using
> the "Metaobject Protocol" along with a Common Lisp like "Condition System".
>
Forth in the context of the core of an object system is interesting… someone
did in 1979 a Smalltalk and Forth inspired system called “Rosetta Smalltalk"
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1113572.1113555
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1113572.1113555>
But: the nice thing of evolving a system is that you *always* can show a real,
working result. You can have users, including yourself… you can find ways of
financing
your work that is not just promising something for the future. (which you can
only do so often before people get sceptical).
I think being part of the early Squeak community kind of burned for me the
“let’s not improve that (relatively) simple thing A, instead wait for <genius
X> to finish <amazing Project Z>.
Imagine instead you would build a feedback-loop *inside* of your system...
Marcus
