I have not looked at Pharo, but the Lisp development environment on my Symbolics computers is amazingly integrated, so this is a very high bar to surpass if true.
Running Pharo (or Cincom Smalltalk or Squeak Smalltalk) on an OS like Windows is similar in many ways to an old Symbolics machine, but Symbolics didn't need to sit on top of an OS, but was lisp all the way down. This existed in the past with Smalltalk as well at Xerox Park where it introduced the GUI and Mouse. I forget the machine's name, but someone on HN rebuilt one recently. The hardware was expensive at the time much like Lisp machines. The best lisp comparison to Smalltalk on Windows is likely SBCL + Emacs Slime, but even that is an inadequate comparison as Emacs Slime is mostly just a super powerful text editor and Pharo is fully graphical. You can run some code to generate a rotating 3D image and recompile any of the methods on the fly and instantaneouly see changes. Even the IDE is fully modifiable and you can change the language to make True = False and break everything. Both SBCL Common Lisp & Pharo use the image concept. So you can save your work and system state in the image.
There are emulators for the old Lisp Machines. The best were Medley (for the old Interlisp-D system from Xerox) and Open Genera from Symbolics. They are philosophical relatively near to Pharo. But Pharo has seen more development in the past decade.
For Common Lisp there are/were many integrated IDEs: Macintosh Common Lisp, Allegro CL, LispWorks, Clozure CL on the Mac, Corman Lisp on Windows upto McCLIM for several CL implementations. A general difference to Pharo is usually that these CL IDEs use mostly native user interfaces. Pharo comes with its own user interface, graphics, window system, display code, event handling, ... Example: Pharo windows on a Mac are not Mac windows. Clozure CL windows on the Mac are Cocoa windows. Similar: most CL systems use native code.
The real commercial Smalltalk machines were underpowered compared to some of the Lisp Machines - for example those from Symbolics - but those were also quite a bit more expensive. It was possible to spend more than $100k for a Symbolics Lisp Machine with accelerated color graphics and HDTV in/out.
The main difference of Pharo with integrated Lisp environments:
1) Pharo uses portable system independent images. Most Lisp systems uses system (OS / architecture) specific images, since code is natively compiled.
2) Pharo code is not native AOT compiled, IIRC. Common Lisp is either source interpreted or AOT compiled - some are even AOT compiled only - with incremental AOT runtime compiler.
3) Pharo uses its own user interface & gui system. Most Common Lisp systems use a native backend for their GUI. Recent exception is Mezzano, which a CL on the metal, which comes with its own GUI.
4) Pharo/Smalltalk usually manages and tracks source code for the user. Most CL IDEs use files and the user works with files and systems of files. CL then more or less tracks the code in these files.
5) Pharo offers to save state in an image between sessions - Lisp systems use that mostly on demand and less as a session state mechanism. LispWorks has some support for sessions.
<It was possible to spend more >than $100k for a Symbolics >Lisp Machine with accelerated >color graphics and HDTV >in/out.
Quantel Harry was the competition.
Link below, is for the 1981 Quantel Paintbox, the existence of which is responsible for the direction of my juvenile mind.
I should love to one day get together with like minded folk and assemble a complete ca. '89 broadcast graphics suite. I'm in advertising (London, independent, founder) and I'm not convinced that I couldn't work out the financial arithmetic favourably. I am persuaded by artist friends of the merit, tempered I expect by the reality of the working interfaces, if they actually used a 80s Quantel - we take instantaneous responsiveness for granted.. Time and place required, but I'm serious enough to have scouted premises and allocated budget.
I digress. Sorry.
I only have read about Pharo in the last couple of weeks, but I am taken by the sophistication of the ambitions and delivery thereof. I say this here, rather thanon a Pharo list, because I am unsure of what skills and specialities are required, but I have a professional itch to scratch, which is estimating the work of supporting a new language to the fullest extent possible, in Visual Studio. If this could be accomplished in under half a man year for a senior developer, I really want to know. (result to be released to community, purpose of exercise purely personal curiosity about what consequent effect is possible)
My impression is that Quantal was more or less about 2d paint and compositing.
The Symbolics Graphics System was more about 3d modeling and animation for TV and games. Paint was also provided - but also in combination with animation.
User lispm is all about some lisp and lisp machines...super knowledgeable on the subject. I like to think he has acheived a general purpose AI on his networked Symbolics machines. All jokes aside he/she has posted some great stuff on here and the lisp subreddit.
Like lispm, I have several working MacIvory machines as well as several native Ivory machines and several working DEC Alphas running OpenGenera. I also have others including TI and Xerox but have not yet restored them.
You can, with a bit of effort, get OpenGenera running on a Linux VM and display on a modern X server. There are a few patches needed due to recent X server changes, or just run an Ubuntu from a dozen years ago on metal.
