And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it. 

Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:)

On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we
>>> ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
>> 
>> You believe this???
> 
> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you
> mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk,
> then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards"
> 15 years and older.
> 
> But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for
> "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been
> called.
> 
> frank
> 
>> Edgar
>> 
>> 
>> 
>