Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

TedVanGaalen wrote > I am only suggesting that Pharo should be downward compatible > (that is, within Pharo's scope only). I agree that this is a worthy ideal, but IMHO is not realistic with the current resources (time and staff). All that additional code would have to be maintained. In the worst

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Trygve Reenskaug wrote > I have recently completed a conceptual model with tools for a new way of > programming for novices. Hi trygve, what is the project and how can I install it? I try to follow all your work... Trygve Reenskaug wrote > the port will probably be outdated > and useless by th

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

+10 Ted, I have recently completed a conceptual model with tools for a new way of programming for novices. It works under Squeak version 3.10.2 and it is tempting to port it to the current version of Pharo to make it generally available. This will take time, and the port will probably be outdat

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Hi Ben Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I was thinking of Pharo-backward-compatibility. not Smalltalk-backward-compatibility I am only suggesting that Pharo should be downward compatible (that is, within Pharo's scope only). meaning that everything built wit Pharo version X should load and

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

I agree completely. Pharo is a Smalltalk, but it need not be constrained by Smalltalk-80. Pharo is completely free to chart its own course. As far as I can tell, Nik Boyd's Hoot Smalltalk is doing the same thing. This is purely a PR matter. Pharo's reputation doesn't want to be tarred with Smallta

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

--- Begin Message --- Smalltalk didn't "fail". We just didn't have the CPU power at the time to achieve our dreams! And "Smalltalk is slow" was tagged forever besides the name... 2020-02-08 07:17, Ben Coman wrote:The aim of the advertised statement that Pharo-is-not-Smalltalk is to avoid you

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

I am of the side of this argument that Pharo is a kind of Smalltalk, but the group that forked Squeak to create Pharo did so with the express intention of being separate-from-Smalltalk and we should respect that intention. Indeed here we can see three reasons why they feel the need to advertise th

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> The audience for the Smalltalk-inspired campaign is the other 99% of programmers who would never get past: "Smalltalk = 1980 = dead = not worth checking out". Never? This is what I've been trying to overcome for the past 5 years with hundreds of blogs. > Have already made up their mind and will

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Although I'll stick to what I wrote, looking back at what I wrote, it appears as to be not friendly at all times, I will try to prevent that next time. It also has to do with communication in writing only, which is a whole lot different as talking and listening while e.g. sharing a table together a

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Although I'll stick to what I wrote, looking back at what I wrote, it appears as to be not friendly at all times, I will try to prevent that next time. It also has to do with communication in writing only, which is a whole lot different as talking and listening while e.g. sharing a table together a

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> pharo is not smalltalk > TedVanGaalen wrote >> Pharo IS Smalltalk, whether you like it or not. An ancient parable goes... > A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had > been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and > form. Out of curios

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> You can evangelize what you want but I would prefer if you have to evangelize, keep it to smalltalk and do not refer to pharo, not even with screenshots. Whoa! You want me to remove all references to Pharo in my smalltalk.tech.blog??? That would eliminate most of the current blog posts. It woul

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

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.

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> 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 uniqu

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> Am 06.02.2020 um 14:45 schrieb horrido : > > As I suggested earlier, my evangelism has been rather polarizing. There are a > lot of people like yourself who don't appreciate my efforts. There a lot of > people who do. > > For example, when I attended the FAST conference in Salta, many people

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Dear Esteban, To make a long thread short: For users, your attitude/opinion implies the following facts: -if adhering to Pharo, then all the things one creates become increasingly incompatible with Smalltalk, because, in effect, you state that Pharo abandons/deviates from Smalltalk as a standar

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

As I suggested earlier, my evangelism has been rather polarizing. There are a lot of people like yourself who don't appreciate my efforts. There a lot of people who do. For example, when I attended the FAST conference in Salta, many people (Leandro Caniglia, Carlos Ferro, etc.) expressed their app

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> Am 05.02.2020 um 20:41 schrieb horrido : > >> It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it > > Well, that's a peculiar attitude. There are many, many programming language > evangelists and I don't think anybody "asked" them to do it. They do it for > the love of the lang

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

eople what should be done and endlessly discuss about that: just do it yourself. Sven > On 6 Feb 2020, at 10:00, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users > wrote: > > > From: Benoit St-Jean > Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk" > Date:

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

--- Begin Message --- Then I have a question... and I'm not being sarcastic here! As Pharo users, are we allowed to suggest ideas from other environments, even other languages or projects? If I think we should implement something similar to VisualWork's MemoryPolicy in Pharo, where should I d

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

So, I’m going to say this and then I will close this thread: Regardless what you think about Pharo and its heritage and how it should be called, this is a list to talk about this particular artefact that is Pharo. You can say: There is Smalltalk, and there is Pharo who is a part of it. That’s

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

I've never posted to /r/smalltalk. There's no point in preaching to the choir. I posted to /r/programming and everybody there tried to lynch me. Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list wrote > FWIW I am one of the mods of /r/smalltalk - happy to have material > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 5,

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

--- Begin Message --- FWIW I am one of the mods of /r/smalltalk - happy to have material Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 5, 2020, at 13:12, horrido wrote: > > Reddit is a strange bird. I have found more resistance to Smalltalk there > than from any other source on the planet. Moreover, those peopl

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

--- Begin Message --- Here we go again... What is wrong with you people? Seriously? With this "Pharo is NOT Smalltalk" BS? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck! To convince yourself, I urge you all to try to evaluate this in any oth

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

I'm not sure ANSI compliance is particularly useful. Nobody develops an application strictly to the ANSI standard. Ben Coman had to port VisualWorks code to Pharo for my JRMPC competition and it wasn't exactly a cake walk. My friend Bob Nemic got confused between VisualWorks and Pharo because of t

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Yes, Esteban, maybe I was a bit harsh, in a sense you're right too, However it becomes blurred then wat Smalltalk really is. (e.g. I recommend Pharo as Smalltalk to others) I would prefer -but who am I- that all Smalltalk dialects should implement the ANSI standard as a minimum and at least o

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

I beg to differ. I believe it is possible to re-energize Smalltalk. I believe /marketing/ is the key. Read https://medium.com/@richardeng/yes-it-is-allow-me-to-explain-dbd33ef0ff21 I've always known this was an uphill battle. Ultimately, you may be right, but I choose to be more optimistic. My p

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

st 5. 2. 2020 v 20:42 odesílatel horrido napsal: > > It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it > > Well, that's a peculiar attitude. There are many, many programming language > evangelists and I don't think anybody "asked" them to do it. They do it for > the love of the la

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Reddit is a strange bird. I have found more resistance to Smalltalk there than from any other source on the planet. Moreover, those people *really* don't appreciate me evangelizing anything. Consequently, I've avoided Reddit like the plague. I don't know what kind of readership exists at Reddit, b

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

st 5. 2. 2020 v 20:48 odesílatel horrido napsal: > I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the > critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. > > So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? > > If you're an evangelist, you have

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

I'm not sure whose feedback I should regard as wisdom. This uncertainty stems from a key philosophical difference I had 5 years ago. Read Interview with a Smalltalk Evangelist . At the time, I don't think anybod

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> > 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 co

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:48 PM horrido wrote: > > I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the > critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. > > So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? tr;dr answer: know who you listen to.

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

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 ow

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

I learned a long time ago that you can't please everybody. I've heard the critics about my evangelism. I've also heard the praise. So what am I supposed to do? Listen to the critics and ignore the fans? If you're an evangelist, you have to develop a thick skin and follow your heart. Otherwise, ge

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> Le 5 févr. 2020 à 19:50, horrido 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

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it Well, that's a peculiar attitude. There are many, many programming language evangelists and I don't think anybody "asked" them to do it. They do it for the love of the language. I hear what you're saying, and I understand fully.

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

st 5. 2. 2020 v 19:02 odesílatel horrido napsal: > > You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. We > don’t, and that’s ok too. Is about what we want to do. > > Who's "we"? > > Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core > developers; it's a commun

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Yes, these are two completely different issues... - Pharo is Smalltalk - you don't want general Smalltalk discussion polluting this forum I get it. But as I point out here , Pharo is in a unique position and I would hop

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> Am 05.02.2020 um 19:02 schrieb horrido : > >  >> >> You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. We > don’t, and that’s ok too. Is about what we want to do. > > Who's "we"? > As you have obviously trouble reading our web site for instructions like bug reporting or o

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> Am 05.02.2020 um 18:22 schrieb Steve Davies : > >  > > >> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, Cédrick Béler wrote: >> https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org >> > > Thanks. > > My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing > code going

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 19:01, horrido wrote: > >> You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. We > don’t, and that’s ok too. Is about what we want to do. > > Who's "we"? > > Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core > developers; it's a communi

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:50, horrido 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'

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. We don’t, and that’s ok too. Is about what we want to do. Who's "we"? Last time I checked, nobody owns Pharo. Pharo is not a bunch of core developers; it's a community. And I believe there are many Pharoers who share my view.

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

> pharo is not smalltalk I understand that Pharo wants to chart its own future, and that's great, but to deny its heritage only makes Pharo look haughty and foolish because... Pharo *is* Smalltalk in the same way that VisualWorks is Smalltalk and VA Smalltalk is Smalltalk and GemStone/S is Smallt

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Hi Steve, > On 5 Feb 2020, at 18:21, Steve Davies wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, Cédrick Béler wrote: > https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > > > Thanks. > > My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing > code goin

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Steve Davies wrote: > I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not easy for me > to tell if my question is a Pharo question of a Smalltalk one. Pharo is the political division(*) , Smalltalk was is the same territory. >From now on you can call

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:08, Cédrick Béler wrote: > https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > > Thanks. My problem is I'm a newbie. I thought Pharo was a Smalltalk, containing code going back to ST80. I don't know where Pharo stops and Smalltalk starts, so its not

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

https://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > Le 5 févr. 2020 à 17:08, Steve Davies a écrit : > >  > Hi, > > Can you point me to how to unsubscribe. Obviously not the list for me. > > Thanks, > Steve > > >> On Wed, 05 Feb 2020, 18:04 Esteban Lorenzano, wrote: >>

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Hi, Can you point me to how to unsubscribe. Obviously not the list for me. Thanks, Steve On Wed, 05 Feb 2020, 18:04 Esteban Lorenzano, wrote: > We are so over this discussion. > You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. > We don’t, and that’s ok too. > Is about what

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

We are so over this discussion. You want to take the Smalltalk heritage as a definition, that’s ok. We don’t, and that’s ok too. Is about what we want to do. For any other argument, please take into account this thought from Alan Kay: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMJoLicXsAA7dej?format=jpg&name=

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

Pharo IS Smalltalk, whether you like it or not. my 2 cents: This thread is incredibly ridiculous IMHO. Is this becoming something like a religious argument, like church schisms in medieval times? Pharo IS Smalltalk and that is good: That means everyone that is familiar with Smalltalk can use P