3 ms·

Great choice. Pharo deserves more attention for those wanting to do OOP.

• melvinroest 5y ago
  I have some idea behind the OOP now and it's insane how everything is an object. I wouldn't call Pharo OOP. I'd call Pharo live OOP. Normally, objects in languages are asleep like a bear in hibernation or something only to wake up when spring arrives (or when you click "compile"). But in Pharo they are awake when you edit them. If I was a DJ/producer, I'd try to see if it makes sense as a music tool.
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    No, Pharo is OOP. The other stuff that people call OOP isn't.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • melvinroest 5y ago
      You mean to say that OOP needs to have live objects by design? (in order to be called OOP)
      • jacquesm 5y ago
        That was the original meaning. Roughly until 'Java' came around and started calling everything an object. We used to call structures with data and pointers to functions just that: structures.