Sorry guys but I dont think this is non sense because you may be coding in
Pharo and Smalltalk for a long time, but as a beginner I was confused by
this, and to this day I am still confused why Pharo is not calling itself a
modern implementation of Smalltalk. Even in Pharo by Example there was no
mention at all the Pharo is a Squeak fork, nothing, now there is (few week
before) , guess who added it. No mention about Squeak in our website
whatsoever. Why ? Do we just fork and forget about them ?
Also this whole guilt about the so called "failure" or "death" of smalltalk
is hilarious. Smalltalk was never popular and we certainly wont be with
Pharo, because in the end its very unfamiliar and most coders dont like
going outside their comfort zone. Personally I am fine with that but this
is why I use Pharo to get outside my comfort zone and think outside the
box, but I dont kid myself, I belong to a tiny minority.
I am sorry if you feel that we derail the thread, but some of us feel very
uncomfortable by some people trying to mislead newcomers that Pharo will at
some point brake away from Smalltalk heritage when we all know that wont
happen for the following reasons 1) Smalltalk is an awesome language and
its failure to become popular has nothing to do with the IDE and the
language and more to do with lack of libraries, documentation and third
party tool support plus of course the all important familiarity b) Most
likely a ton of Squeak and older Smalltalk code will remain in Pharo
because none sane enough would removed code that has stood the test of
time, is well designed and works c) Even if you have a tiny sense or
realism you will realize that the reason why people use Pharo is because is
a modern implementation of smalltalk, trying to connect with modern
technologies but at same time remaining a smalltalk in the core.
And finally lets take into account that all languages are evolving.
I was coding C++ till 1996 and was very frustrated with the language,
manual memory management, inflexible type system, horrible GUI libraries
(MFC). Now I learn C++ 11 which means an almost fully dynamic type systems
(see auto , templates etc) , automatic memory management (smart pointers),
vast array of greatly design GUI and graphics libraries (QT, Unreal, GTK
etc). In 20 years C++ has become night and day, sure still much more ugly
than Pharo but far, far better . Did we stop calling it C++ ?
I totally agree, that this discussion arises few time per year and in the
end we dont agree. But I dont post here to make you change your mind, I
know people rarely do that, I post here because I want to make crystal to
begineers viewing this mailing that for me and many others:
*Pharo IS Smalltalk, Pharo IS a Squeak fork, Pharo is a modern
implementation that tries to push forward but respects its heritage and
pays credit to it. *
Saying that if this numpy variant library intends to target only Pharo
then it makes more sense to call it SciPharo.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:30 PM Volkert <***@komponentenwerkstatt.de>
> On 06.03.2016 09:48, stepharo wrote:
> Why Pharo is not smalltalk and will not be Smalltalk
> - First because we make it to free us from the past.
> - In the future we want that people that learned smalltalk in the 90
> do not discard Pharo because
> - "what killed smalltalk was that we could not work well
> in team"
> - "smalltalk oh it does not scale"
> - "I cannot edit my code with emacs"
> - "oh back in 1993 I got lecture and the system took 10
> min to boot on our sparc (I got this story yesterday)"
> - I did not get how you work in team
> - "with Smalltalk you cannot save your code in svn"
> - "Smalltalk is monolithic"
> - "you are in a cage you cannot interact with the outside
> world" a guy organising OOPSLA
> - "Smalltalk what a dated name! bavardage: tu programmes
> en bavardage, donc les resultats ne doivent pas
> etre si super que cela...."
> I do not care that these statements are right or wrong.
> I do not care that people are ignorant. And yes with some education we can
> show that they are wrong.
> There are in the mind of people that got in touch with Smalltalk.
> No more no less.
> So may be Smalltalkers should read book about marketing in general.
> So you are stuck in your history and I'm dreaming about the future: and
> the future is Pharo not Smalltalk. Face it.
> There will be no renewal of Smalltalk. Pharo is the chance for Smalltalk
> to exist in 2050.
> The future is much more important that the history.
> You do not make people dreaming telling them that back in the 1940 you add
> to cross the street to fetch water.
> left blank on purpose
> Le 5/3/16 18:22, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit :
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 12:10 AM, stepharo <***@free.fr> wrote:
> You probably leave in a protected environment but I do not live in the
> Did you check numPy recently or R? momemtum?
> Do you think that people do not know how to count?
> In 1980 my students were not even born, so how can it be better than
> python, java, c#, lua, ...
> Do you think that it makes me happy to see my old friends leaving our
> language and do node.js.
> Why do you blame me? Frankly tell to leave Pharo and I will leave. I can
> tell you.
> I think that I need a break in my life in this moment so it would be a
> good opportunity.
> Because if each time I do something to improve the wealth and visibility
> of our system
> I get such kind of feedback then may be this is the time to do something.
> Afterall I may be wrong.
> Seriously if you think that I'm not doing a good job and you want to stay
> with old friends
> just let me know. but if I stay then do not tell me that I'm an asshole
> that does not want to
> promote smalltalk.
> I do not blame you. I am offended by Pharo disavowing the Smalltalk
> name. I am offended when people state Pharo is not Smalltalk. I want to
> refute false assumptions about the name Smalltalk, such as the equating
> it with cobol. Instead of taking it personally why don't you address my
> points about older programming languages whose names (AFAICT) are not
> perceived negatively?
> I support this community and am excited to participate in it. I admire
> and respect your efforts, StÃ©phane, in developing, organizing and
> supporting this community. But that does not mean I will keep quiet about
> something I profoundly disagree with and think is wrong. And that thing is
> to deny Pharo is Smalltalk.
> And I do this not because I am a zealot, but because words meaning are
> important, because to understand each other we should call a spade a spade,
> and because I am grateful for and delighted by this thing called Smalltalk,
> and I will not support taking credit away from it. Ruby is inspired by
> Smalltalk. Pharo is the real thing.
> Le 5/3/16 02:18, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit :
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, stepharo <***@free.fr> wrote:
>> SciPharo? Not so great news from my POV.
>> What is so much pharo specific in this library?
>> Is Smalltalk scientific community large enough for yet another split?
>> Split of what? Let us be tagged with a name of 1980 and die in peace. Yes
>> this looks like a
>> smart move.
>> and swift)
>> so this is a great move. We are not the cobol of object-oriented
> When I read sentiments like this it makes me want to leave the community.
> I find it so offensive that the Pharo community uses Smalltalk but wants to
> distance itself. It feels like theft or massive disrespect for the
> inventors of the language, or a complete lack of gratitude.
> C is older than Smalltalk and no one says "C is the cobol of low-level
> imperative languages". List is much older than C but no one wants to
> rename Lisp because it is perceived as old.
> Smalltalk is a beautiful name, carefully chosen to differentiate and
> identify the system as different, not arrogant, not hieroglyphic. Further,
> Smalltalkl /is/ different and distinctive materially. Why anyone would be
> ashamed of that incredible heritage and pervasive influence is beyond me.