JF
Johan Fabry
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 1:46 PM
I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
The thing is, I’m not so sure that there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what it is not. For us, people with many years of ST experience, this may be the case, but for (relative) newcomers I think this is not the case. Doru’s audience and the people looking at the Pharo web site would be the latter.
By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those is that in this light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community. Whether you reckon the word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is your personal feeling. Divorce is a usual term describing the splitting of a former whole. I don't find it aggressive.
Sorry if I read more into the divorce word than what you meant to put there. But I think that the word divorce has at least a negative connotation. (I guess I am not the only one but I can of course not speak for the general public.)
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk. If it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away from some Smalltalk concept (technical or non-technical) it should be said so, and whith regards to which concept and into what differing direction. There are many ways to the future. No problem with that. Smalltalk will walk its path.
Well, there are different paths to the future, different ways to evolve towards similar - or different - goals. Pharo is choosing its own path, but that does not imply that other ST’s cannot choose similar (or different) paths. Given the audience of Doru’s talk I think it’s OK to say it like this. With more time (or web page space) this could be made more clear of course.
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On Jul 31, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
> I think there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what is not: Ruby, Java and many others ARE Smalltalk inspired. Up to now I considered all Smalltalks that carry that term and also Squeak and the Pharo fork as "true" Smalltalks.
The thing is, I’m not so sure that there is a common understanding of what Smalltalk is and what it is not. For us, people with many years of ST experience, this may be the case, but for (relative) newcomers I think this is not the case. Doru’s audience and the people looking at the Pharo web site would be the latter.
> By Doru's words he considers Pharo more in the "inspired, non-Smalltalk" corner. That is ok, yet has consequences. One of those is that in this light Pharo is leaving the Smalltalk community. Whether you reckon the word "divorce" for that departure aggressive is your personal feeling. Divorce is a usual term describing the splitting of a former whole. I don't find it aggressive.
Sorry if I read more into the divorce word than what you meant to put there. But I think that the word divorce has at least a negative connotation. (I guess I am not the only one but I can of course not speak for the general public.)
> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk. If it was intended to say that Pharo wants to move away from some Smalltalk concept (technical or non-technical) it should be said so, and whith regards to which concept and into what differing direction. There are many ways to the future. No problem with that. Smalltalk will walk its path.
Well, there are different paths to the future, different ways to evolve towards similar - or different - goals. Pharo is choosing its own path, but that does not imply that other ST’s cannot choose similar (or different) paths. Given the audience of Doru’s talk I think it’s OK to say it like this. With more time (or web page space) this could be made more clear of course.
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
AV
Andres Valloud
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 1:49 PM
Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we write
more emails, though, please consider the following...
We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our
lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an
organized fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open,
professional, and widget focused. However, email's high latency tends
to promote an increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those
interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in
person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (and over
beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved
- to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community
in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies
that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I
don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act
together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held
Pharo back.
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with
people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people
are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in
other environments nowadays.
The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where
we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can
readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that
Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk
IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after
browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we
still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level
and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
requirements and decisions -- go figure).
So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed
many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of
refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
finally buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we
sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru,
Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
won't let you.
Reinout
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we write
more emails, though, please consider the following...
We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our
lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an
organized fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open,
professional, and widget focused. However, email's high latency tends
to promote an increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those
interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in
person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over
beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
>
>> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved
>> - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community
>> in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies
>> that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I
>> don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
>
>
> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
> implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
> single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
> itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
>
> I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
> professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
> niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
> namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act
> together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held
> Pharo back.
>
> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
> object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with
> people wallowing in past greatness.
>
> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people
> are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in
> *other* environments nowadays.
> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where
> we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can
> readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that
> Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk
> IDE did is telling.
>
> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after
> browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we
> still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level
> and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
> level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
> Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
> requirements and decisions -- go figure).
> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed
> many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of
> refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>
>
> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
> dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>
> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
> *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we
> sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>
>
>
>
> Go Doru,
> Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
> won't let you.
>
>
>
>
> Reinout
> -
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>
JF
James Foster
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 1:56 PM
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while).
In what way does GemStone/S not have “a decent namespace implementation”?
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Reinout Heeck <reinout@soops.nl> wrote:
> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while).
In what way does GemStone/S not have “a decent namespace implementation”?
> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework
Have you seen TODE (https://code.google.com/p/tode/ and https://github.com/dalehenrich/tode)?
FS
Frank Shearar
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 1:58 PM
This seems like a remarkably appropriate paper to read -
http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Lambda.html "Lambda, the Ultimate
Political Party" - in which Kent Pitman describes events in the Lisp
community that sound an awful lot like the discussions that sometimes
take place in the Smalltalk community. Especially around "what is
Smalltalk".
frank
On 31 July 2014 14:49, Andres Valloud avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net wrote:
Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we write
more emails, though, please consider the following...
We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our lives
and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an organized
fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open, professional, and
widget focused. However, email's high latency tends to promote an
increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those interested in tackling
these challenges would get on the same page in person. We can start doing
that just two weeks from now (and over beer or equivalent). I'm looking
forward to it :).
On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved
- to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community
in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies
that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I
don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act
together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held
Pharo back.
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with
people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people
are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in
other environments nowadays.
The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where
we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can
readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that
Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk
IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after
browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we
still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level
and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
requirements and decisions -- go figure).
So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed
many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of
refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
finally buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we
sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru,
Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
won't let you.
Reinout
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
This seems like a remarkably appropriate paper to read -
http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Lambda.html "Lambda, the Ultimate
Political Party" - in which Kent Pitman describes events in the Lisp
community that sound an awful lot like the discussions that sometimes
take place in the Smalltalk community. Especially around "what is
Smalltalk".
frank
On 31 July 2014 14:49, Andres Valloud <avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:
> Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
> thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we write
> more emails, though, please consider the following...
>
> We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our lives
> and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an organized
> fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open, professional, and
> widget focused. However, email's high latency tends to promote an
> increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those interested in tackling
> these challenges would get on the same page in person. We can start doing
> that just two weeks from now (*and* over beer or equivalent). I'm looking
> forward to it :).
>
>
> On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always evolved
>>> - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a community
>>> in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future silently implies
>>> that that community didn't move to the future, i. e. stays as is. I
>>> don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
>> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
>> implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
>> single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
>> itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
>>
>> I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
>> professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
>> niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
>> namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act
>> together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held
>> Pharo back.
>>
>> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
>> object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with
>> people wallowing in past greatness.
>>
>> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people
>> are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in
>> *other* environments nowadays.
>> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where
>> we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can
>> readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that
>> Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk
>> IDE did is telling.
>>
>> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after
>> browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we
>> still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level
>> and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
>> level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
>> Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
>> requirements and decisions -- go figure).
>> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed
>> many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of
>> refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>>
>>
>> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
>> dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>>
>> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
>> *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we
>> sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Go Doru,
>> Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
>> won't let you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Reinout
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esug-list mailing list
>> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
>> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
NH
Nowak, Helge
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 2:37 PM
Thanks Frank! I think Kent Pitman is spot on!
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Esug-list [mailto:esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org] Im Auftrag von Frank Shearar
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 15:58
An: ESUG Mailing list
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
This seems like a remarkably appropriate paper to read - http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Lambda.html "Lambda, the Ultimate Political Party" - in which Kent Pitman describes events in the Lisp community that sound an awful lot like the discussions that sometimes take place in the Smalltalk community. Especially around "what is Smalltalk".
frank
On 31 July 2014 14:49, Andres Valloud avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net wrote:
Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we
write more emails, though, please consider the following...
We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our
lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an
organized fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open,
professional, and widget focused. However, email's high latency tends
to promote an increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those
interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in
person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (and over
beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always
evolved
- to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a
community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future
silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i.
e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its
act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community
held Pharo back.
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!)
with people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that
people are experimenting with new(ish) software development
methodologies in
other environments nowadays.
The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE
where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains
can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations.
Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before
the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework
after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects
and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at
ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
requirements and decisions -- go figure).
So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not
changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the
introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
finally buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where
we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru,
Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
won't let you.
Reinout
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Thanks Frank! I think Kent Pitman is spot on!
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Esug-list [mailto:esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org] Im Auftrag von Frank Shearar
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 15:58
An: ESUG Mailing list
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
This seems like a remarkably appropriate paper to read - http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Lambda.html "Lambda, the Ultimate Political Party" - in which Kent Pitman describes events in the Lisp community that sound an awful lot like the discussions that sometimes take place in the Smalltalk community. Especially around "what is Smalltalk".
frank
On 31 July 2014 14:49, Andres Valloud <avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:
> Surely that can be cast in a more positive light, perhaps sharing your
> thoughts on how to get to a qualitatively better place. Before we
> write more emails, though, please consider the following...
>
> We experience periodic bursts of unhelpful self inflicted injury. Our
> lives and energies would be better spent getting stuff done in an
> organized fashion. It is essential to keep conversations open,
> professional, and widget focused. However, email's high latency tends
> to promote an increasingly defensive posture. So, ideally, those
> interested in tackling these challenges would get on the same page in
> person. We can start doing that just two weeks from now (*and* over
> beer or equivalent). I'm looking forward to it :).
>
>
> On 7/31/14 5:26 , Reinout Heeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Smalltalk as a technology, philosophy and community has always
>>> evolved
>>> - to the future (to what else?). Claiming that one leaves a
>>> community in emphasizing that one wants to move to the future
>>> silently implies that that community didn't move to the future, i.
>>> e. stays as is. I don't think that this is a correct observation with regards to Smalltalk.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
>> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace
>> implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The
>> single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce'
>> itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
>>
>> I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the
>> professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that
>> niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent
>> namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its
>> act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community
>> held Pharo back.
>>
>> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct
>> object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!)
>> with people wallowing in past greatness.
>>
>> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that
>> people are experimenting with new(ish) software development
>> methodologies in
>> *other* environments nowadays.
>> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE
>> where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains
>> can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations.
>> Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before
>> the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
>>
>> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework
>> after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects
>> and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at
>> ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions'
>> level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the
>> Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation
>> requirements and decisions -- go figure).
>> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not
>> changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the
>> introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>>
>>
>> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is
>> dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>>
>> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community
>> *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where
>> we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Go Doru,
>> Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community
>> won't let you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Reinout
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esug-list mailing list
>> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
>> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
SD
Stéphane Ducasse
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:01 PM
What are the actions that you make today to offer yourself a future is more interesting. No?
I have students and I prefer that they find a job in “Smalltalk” than in Javascript but you can continue to talk about such important question…
Sorry I do not have the time.
BTW you can have a look at my 2009 Smalltalk presentation because Pharo is to reinvent Smalltalk….
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things:
Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Cheers
Helge
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
What are the actions that you make today to offer yourself a future is more interesting. No?
I have students and I prefer that they find a job in “Smalltalk” than in Javascript but you can continue to talk about such important question…
Sorry I do not have the time.
BTW you can have a look at my 2009 Smalltalk presentation because Pharo is to reinvent Smalltalk….
> Dear Pharoers,
>
> I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This implies three things:
> Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
> All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
> The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that gave them birth
>
> I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
>
> Cheers
> Helge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
SD
Stéphane Ducasse
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:03 PM
The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce' itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held Pharo back.
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You should not judge a community based on the existence or not of a namespace :)>
What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness.
The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in other environments nowadays.
The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure).
So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community finally buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
Go Doru,
Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you.
Reinout
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>
>
> The problem with the Smalltalk community is that it holds itself back.
> For example there are no Smalltalks with a decent namespace implementation (although there was Dave Simmons' S# for a while). The single survivor seems to be NewSpeak which clearly chose to 'divorce' itself from Smalltalk 'proper'.
>
> I recall Pharo was created because Squeak did not cater to the professional market and Pharo would conquer the FLOSS portion of that niche. Seeing that Pharo did not get host window support, nor decent namespaces it seems fair to say that the community did not get its act together -- and if we stretch it we might say that the community held Pharo back.
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You should not judge a community based on the existence or not of a namespace :)>
>
> What I see in the Smalltalk community is a giant circle-jerk (direct object manipulationz! refactoringz! TDDz! xUnitz! we are greatz!) with people wallowing in past greatness.
>
> The reality (a 'correct' observation as per the above?) is that people are experimenting with new(ish) software development methodologies in *other* environments nowadays.
> The example-du-jour is of course Bret Victor who proposes an IDE where we can flatten abstractions (like time) into 2d so our brains can readily grasp and predict consequences of code alterations. Seeing that Apple xCode IDE adopts this paradigm (with Swift) before the Smalltalk IDE did is telling.
>
> Seeing that Pharo and Squeak are still producing browser framework after browser framework and -oh yeah- let's reify packages as objects and we still need a JIT, I observe a lot of ant-like activity at ground level and very little 'giants' activity at the 'how to encode my abstractions' level. (Another example: there still is no accepted paradigm in the Smalltalk community that instructs us how to document implementation requirements and decisions -- go figure).
> So the programmer's discourse with the Smalltalk machine has not changed many times in the past, perhaps just once during the introduction of refactorings and TDD at roughly the same time.
>
>
> What the Smalltalk community seems to miss is that 'Smalltalk 2.0 is dead, long live Smalltalk 3.0' feeling.
>
> Perhaps it behooves ESUG to create a session where the community *finally* buries Smalltalk 1.0 and perhaps also pick the date where we sunset Smalltalk 2.0.
>
>
>
>
> Go Doru,
> Pharo desperately wants to escape Smalltalk 1.0 but the community won't let you.
>
>
>
>
> Reinout
> -
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
TG
Tudor Girba
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:05 PM
Hi,
The official Pharo statement is clearly stated on the http://pharo.org
webpage.
This topic has been (re)discussed recently spawned by my original post on
Pharo is Pharo:
http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo
You can choose to see in my words what you wish. I will choose to not fight
it. I did it before and it lead nowhere. I will only state that we clearly
want to position Pharo to build a future that we do not know at this point
in time.
Cheers,
Doru
Cheers,
Doru
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak hknowak@yahoo.de wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live
Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we
want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to
move towards the future”. This implies three things:
1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that
gave them birth
I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo
community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Cheers
Helge
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Hi,
The official Pharo statement is clearly stated on the http://pharo.org
webpage.
This topic has been (re)discussed recently spawned by my original post on
Pharo is Pharo:
http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo
You can choose to see in my words what you wish. I will choose to not fight
it. I did it before and it lead nowhere. I will only state that we clearly
want to position Pharo to build a future that we do not know at this point
in time.
Cheers,
Doru
Cheers,
Doru
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Dear Pharoers,
>
> I stumbled upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live
> Objects at NDC 2014. In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we
> want to point ourselves that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to
> move towards the future”. This implies three things:
>
> 1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
> 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards the future
> 3. The Pharo community wants to get divorced from the community that
> gave them birth
>
>
> I am wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo
> community? And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
>
> Cheers
> Helge
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>
>
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
HN
Helge Nowak
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:29 PM
Dear Stef and Doru,
what Doru is saying seems contradictory to what Stef does (or I do not understand one, or the both of you correctly):
Doru says: "Pharo is not Smalltalk. Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired."
Whereas Stef says "Pharo is to reinvent Smalltalk" and "I prefer that my students find a job in “Smalltalk”". From which I take that Stef sees himself and Pharo as part of the Smalltalk community. Something I had hoped to hear ;-)
I am with Kent Pitman: "Smalltalk" is not technically defined but by the (sub-)communities and their values. The development of Smalltalk will never stop, each dialect may take its own path yet it will stay "Smalltalk" regardless of what you name it. Only if one thinks that being part of the Smalltalk community doesn't serve him/her well he/she will leave it. I don't see how Pharo and its community did a departure from the Smalltalk values and its overall community. And I hope this will stay that way.
Cheers
Helge
Von: Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com
An: Helge Nowak hknowak@yahoo.de
CC: "pharo-business@lists.pharo.org" pharo-business@lists.pharo.org; "pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr" pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr; ESUG esug-list@lists.esug.org
Gesendet: 17:05 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
Hi,
The official Pharo statement is clearly stated on the http://pharo.org/ webpage.
This topic has been (re)discussed recently spawned by my original post on Pharo is Pharo:
http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo
You can choose to see in my words what you wish. I will choose to not fight it. I did it before and it lead nowhere. I will only state that we clearly want to position Pharo to build a future that we do not know at this point in time.
Cheers,
Doru
Cheers,
Doru
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak hknowak@yahoo.de wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014.
In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves
that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This
implies three things:
1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards
3. The Pharo community wants to get
divorced from the community that gave them birth
wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community?
And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
Dear Stef and Doru,
what Doru is saying seems contradictory to what Stef does (or I do not understand one, or the both of you correctly):
Doru says: "Pharo is not Smalltalk. Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired."
Whereas Stef says "Pharo is to reinvent Smalltalk" and "I prefer that my students find a job in “Smalltalk”". From which I take that Stef sees himself and Pharo as part of the Smalltalk community. Something I had hoped to hear ;-)
I am with Kent Pitman: "Smalltalk" is not technically defined but by the (sub-)communities and their values. The development of Smalltalk will never stop, each dialect may take its own path yet it will stay "Smalltalk" regardless of what you name it. Only if one thinks that being part of the Smalltalk community doesn't serve him/her well he/she will leave it. I don't see how Pharo and its community did a departure from the Smalltalk values and its overall community. And I hope this will stay that way.
Cheers
Helge
Von: Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>
An: Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de>
CC: "pharo-business@lists.pharo.org" <pharo-business@lists.pharo.org>; "pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr" <pharo-consortium@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; ESUG <esug-list@lists.esug.org>
Gesendet: 17:05 Donnerstag, 31.Juli 2014
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] "Pharo is Smalltalk inspired"
Hi,
The official Pharo statement is clearly stated on the http://pharo.org/ webpage.
This topic has been (re)discussed recently spawned by my original post on Pharo is Pharo:
http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo
You can choose to see in my words what you wish. I will choose to not fight it. I did it before and it lead nowhere. I will only state that we clearly want to position Pharo to build a future that we do not know at this point in time.
Cheers,
Doru
Cheers,
Doru
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Helge Nowak <hknowak@yahoo.de> wrote:
Dear Pharoers,
>
>I stumbled
upon Doru’s (BTW excellent, as usual) presentation on Live Objects at NDC 2014.
In there he states “Pharo is Smalltalk inspired. … we want to point ourselves
that we are Smalltalk inspired because we want to move towards the future”. This
implies three things:
> 1. Pharo is NOT Smalltalk
> 2. All Smalltalks are not moving towards
the future
> 3. The Pharo community wants to get
divorced from the community that gave them birth
>
>
>I am
wondering whether this is indeed the official position of the Pharo community?
And how the Smalltalkers think about it.
>
>Cheers
>Helge
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Esug-list mailing list
>Esug-list@lists.esug.org
>http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>
>
--
http://www.tudorgirba.com/
"Every thing has its own flow"
RH
Reinout Heeck
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:49 PM
On 7/31/2014 5:03 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You should not judge a community based on the existence or not of a namespace :)>
Not on its own no, but as part of an (incomplete) list of symptoms?
<smiley too>
R
On 7/31/2014 5:03 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but this is totally wrong. You should not judge a community based on the existence or not of a namespace :)>
>>
Not on its own no, but as part of an (incomplete) list of symptoms?
<smiley too>
R
-
