<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><pre style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; ">"...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...."</pre><div><br></div><div>I don't think Smalltalk was designed for children. After the fact, after they had</div><div>designed something they were meant to design, they intended to weld it to </div><div>they most noble cause they could find. I think it's historically inaccurate to say</div><div>Smalltalk was designed for children. I think like a lot of things, like Croquet, </div><div>people follow their muse and create something beautiful. Then they try to </div><div>find a purpose for it. </div><div><br></div><div>So Smalltalk is not a failure because it was designed for children. Because </div><div>it wasn't designed for children. And if you look a the intent of helping </div><div>children with computers, the OLPC looks like a success to me. </div><div><br></div><div>This fellow doesn't seem to distinguish between Smalltalk and OOP. OOP</div><div>is a success. It's everywhere. Lots of people do it, so how hard can it be?</div><div><br></div><div>I always feel people who try to talk this way about Smalltalk are trying to </div><div>invalidate the fun I'm having with the language, because it's not popular </div><div>and it's not making people rich. As far as I'm concerned, this guy's close</div><div>to telling me how I'm supposed to be having sex. </div><div><br></div><div>The funniest part of his saying Smalltalk failed (qualified with a "fundamentally"</div><div>of course. Another loose, imprecise use of the English language IMHO) is that seven </div><div>years ago, when I bought Squeak: Learn Programming With Robots, this fellow had </div><div>never heard of the Smalltalk. Now he's blogging about. Say what you will, our balloon </div><div>rises to greater visibility with every passing year. </div><div><br></div><div>Chris </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>