Are you so sure the ideas behind Smalltalk were not primarily that of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning ?

Nicolas

2012/2/11 Chris Cunnington <smalltalktelevision at gmail.com>:
> "...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a
> programming language originally designed to scale from children to
> adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands
> to this day how to do them right...."
>
>
> I don't think Smalltalk was designed for children. After the fact, after
> they had
> designed something they were meant to design, they intended to weld it to
> they most noble cause they could find. I think it's historically inaccurate
> to say
> Smalltalk was designed for children. I think like a lot of things, like
> Croquet,
> people follow their muse and create something beautiful. Then they try to
> find a purpose for it.
>
> So Smalltalk is not a failure because it was designed for children. Because
> it wasn't designed for children. And if you look a the intent of helping
> children with computers, the OLPC looks like a success to me.
>
> This fellow doesn't seem to distinguish between Smalltalk and OOP. OOP
> is a success. It's everywhere. Lots of people do it, so how hard can it be?
>
> I always feel people who try to talk this way about Smalltalk are trying to
> invalidate the fun I'm having with the language, because it's not popular
> and it's not making people rich. As far as I'm concerned, this guy's close
> to telling me how I'm supposed to be having sex.
>
> The funniest part of his saying Smalltalk failed (qualified with a
> "fundamentally"
> of course. Another loose, imprecise use of the English language IMHO) is
> that seven
> years ago, when I bought Squeak: Learn Programming With Robots, this fellow
> had
> never heard of the Smalltalk. Now he's blogging about. Say what you will,
> our balloon
> rises to greater visibility with every passing year.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>