7 ms·

the "Smalltalk" word is missing from this page and the main one, interesting marketing move :)

hota_mazi 6y ago
Pharo has been distancing itself from the word "Smalltalk" pretty much since day one. This is not surprising at all.
pjmlp 6y ago
Pharo is no longer a pure Smalltalk-80, it follows its own path. Squeak is the real Smalltalk for modern computers if one wants to be precise.
- xkriva11 6y ago
  Squeak was never supposed to be a modern Smalltalk. See https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMJoLicXsAA7dej?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMJoLicXsAA7dej?format=jpg&name=...
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I know, just making the point where Pharo and Squeak differentiate themselves. :)
- mhd 6y ago
  Didn't Cuis[1] branch off from Squeak even before that to be closer to its ST-80 roots. Although, if I recall correctly, it does at least use Morphic and not MVC. [1]: https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    It is the very first time I see anything about it, so not sure.
  - jecel 6y ago
    The focus of Cuis is simplicity, not tradition. So it is only closer to ST80 than Squeak in the cases where new features make Squeak "fat", like Etoys.
- isr 6y ago
  IMHO, thats a trifle misleading. Squeak was the open-source smalltalk, but got bogged down by the accumulated baggage of unfinished projects stuck inside it. Etoys, an aging morphic implementation, etc. Squeak was forked in two separate directions: One was Cuis, which went the "simple-is-better" route, and went on an aggressive cull against complexity. They stripped out as much as they could, and modularised what they could. The result is a much smaller "smalltalk", and yes, more in line with the feel of the original smalltalk-80. Pharo also forked from squeak at about the same time. Their goals were "get rid of some of the squeak baggage, and add newer stuff. So in that sense, its in many ways more complex than squeak (and much more complex than cuis). BUT, they are all essentially forks from squeak. They use essentially the same VM underneath. There are LOTS of squeak classes in the standard classes of both cuis and pharo. In many ways, squeak, pharo and cuis are really 3 different distributions of squeak, as opposed to 3 different languages. I think the following is the more realistic comparison: - squeak = debian stable - pharo = arch linux (or gentoo) - cuis = alpine linux But, they're all linux, and neither one is "more" linux than the other.

Pharo has been distancing itself from the word "Smalltalk" pretty much since day one. This is not surprising at all.

Pharo is no longer a pure Smalltalk-80, it follows its own path. Squeak is the real Smalltalk for modern computers if one wants to be precise.

xkriva11 6y ago
Squeak was never supposed to be a modern Smalltalk. See https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMJoLicXsAA7dej?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMJoLicXsAA7dej?format=jpg&name=...
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I know, just making the point where Pharo and Squeak differentiate themselves. :)
mhd 6y ago
Didn't Cuis[1] branch off from Squeak even before that to be closer to its ST-80 roots. Although, if I recall correctly, it does at least use Morphic and not MVC. [1]: https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
- pjmlp 6y ago
  It is the very first time I see anything about it, so not sure.
- jecel 6y ago
  The focus of Cuis is simplicity, not tradition. So it is only closer to ST80 than Squeak in the cases where new features make Squeak "fat", like Etoys.
isr 6y ago
IMHO, thats a trifle misleading. Squeak was the open-source smalltalk, but got bogged down by the accumulated baggage of unfinished projects stuck inside it. Etoys, an aging morphic implementation, etc. Squeak was forked in two separate directions: One was Cuis, which went the "simple-is-better" route, and went on an aggressive cull against complexity. They stripped out as much as they could, and modularised what they could. The result is a much smaller "smalltalk", and yes, more in line with the feel of the original smalltalk-80. Pharo also forked from squeak at about the same time. Their goals were "get rid of some of the squeak baggage, and add newer stuff. So in that sense, its in many ways more complex than squeak (and much more complex than cuis). BUT, they are all essentially forks from squeak. They use essentially the same VM underneath. There are LOTS of squeak classes in the standard classes of both cuis and pharo. In many ways, squeak, pharo and cuis are really 3 different distributions of squeak, as opposed to 3 different languages. I think the following is the more realistic comparison: - squeak = debian stable - pharo = arch linux (or gentoo) - cuis = alpine linux But, they're all linux, and neither one is "more" linux than the other.