Talk:Pharo

What is this?
Every single paragraph on this page talks about Squeak. Shouldn't this be folded into the Squeak article then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.47.2 (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it doesn't. It talks about the difference between Pharo and Squeak. And given the circumstances, I find this a natural way to talk about Pharo, a fork from Squeak that emerged only recently and does not differ from it much. Hence, Pharo can be described most concisely with reference to Squeak. Maybe you're right that there's a lack of content on Pharo on its own, but that's because much of what Pharo is about is happening with an eye on Squeak. It's like an article on the IRA will have to mention Great Britain in every other paragraph :).
 * However, Pharo is, to me, clearly relevant enough to have its own article, given that the downloads of Pharo recently surpassed Squeak. 130.92.9.55 (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a section to Squeak Hedgehog83 (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not everybody can contribute to the repo
Removed the sentence that said that the repo is open to everyone. It's half-true. And the true half is the trivial sense that everybody can send something for further review. Please add it only with a citation. 130.92.9.57 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pharo is the home of Traits until Self re-emerges (if ever)
For all practical purposes, Pharo is now the home of non-standard 'Traits' Smalltalk.

This is significant because the work towards Pharo in Squeak meant that Traits from Self made their way backwards into Smalltalk ( Self evolved from Smalltalk about the same time as Strongtalk.) But the Seaside framework insists that it must run on standard Smalltalk implementations, so it will not benefit from Traits.

Pharo has said that it will remain Seaside compatible at minimum. While key members of the Berne group have now moved to Lille, Pharo remains one of the more significant nexus of software innovation in Europe - not that this would make it notable to Americans, but the British are also English readers of en.wikipedia.org. I would add that the British contributed to other European innovations such as Prolog (with Prolog++ and Poplog) in ways not seen in the USA.

Like Prolog, Smalltalk was one of the languages not embraced by Microsoft - and that alone makes these articles note-worthy in the world of Mac and Linux - and open-source. This is innovation in Smalltalk - the language which gave us Refactoring, UnitTest, eXtreme programming, pair programming, the idea of the laptop, and the very term "object-oriented".

"Pharo" does not fold into Squeak: Squeak fails to fold into Pharo.

In the same vein, an article on multi-core VM for Squeak, were it "folded into an article on Squeak" would require how many articles to be "folded into" the article on Java? Just consider the article devoted to Lift_(web_framework) for Scala - having gone through that code I see nothing notable at all in Lift - beyond some IT pundit hype ("Java is dead. JVM is not".) The list of such articles would be very long and the task of "folding in" very onerous. In the end, should WP emulate Britanica or will a newer Britanica show that more articles need not be an indexing nightmare (as it would be for a print-only encyclopedia) and as it is not for a Map-Reduce algorithm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Squeak is not MIT is ridiculous.
The re licensing effort was done by the Software Freedom Law Center. There is no one in the world more qualified to say that the effort was done properly.


 * Obviously you didn't read the words "was doubted". So the statement was correct and so I pressed the undo-button for your arbitray deletion. Giving some evidence for your proposition would be more helpfull than just ranting. 91.22.191.2 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)