Hi,

Objects with methods invoked via message sends are 'simply' a
reorganization of data structures and procedural programming techniques.
The difference is in the message selection (run time and dynamic v.s.
compile time and static).

However, human thinking works differently than a computer running a
program.

To a human it may be much easier to visualize and mentally think about
'objects' communicating by sending messages back and forth. It's more
natural and easier for most humans to think in terms of these 'object' and
'communication' metaphors than to think in terms of abstract 'call stacks,
data structures, and subroutines, etc...'.

At least this was, as I understand the Xerox PARC history, a significant
part of the original goal for Smalltalk. To enable 'small' children to use
power computing capabilities via the childs existing (very key) and already
developed human language skills. 

Wasn't this the reason that it's called 'Small-talk' and not
'Object-message-send-talk' or 'data-structure-procedure talk'? It's simply
a matter of what you focus on, and Smalltalks designers focused (please
correct me if I'm wrong about this) on the human side. They then made the
technology approximate what they wanted for kids (of all ages) to
accomplish while using the language system.

In addition, the Smalltalk syntax of 'object verb' approximates and is a
simplified form of natural language sentances that we develop as a child .
This has powerful implications for usability by humans. In part it may mean
that we can more directly use our 'million years under development' brain
and mind technology (that we carry around in our brain case atop our neck)
in working with computers.

All the best,

Peter William Lount
peter at smalltalk.org
http://www.smalltalk.org