> >I think the biggest failing of smalltalk has been that there is just so
> >much you have to learn before you can be even minimally productive.. and
> >that's a disincentive for all but the stoutest soul.
> 
> Yep, the greatest problem is the critical mass needed to understand. It's 
> much bigger than any other language's.
Gotta disagree here. I think Smalltalk is easier to learn than almost any
other language. I spent several years teaching Smalltalk, so it's not just
an unfounded opinion....

If you have already spent (wasted?) time learning to think like a cpu (in
order to do basic/C/FROTRAN/etc) then yes, you will have a bit of a
struggle to unlearn that and change to a simulation based thought model. If
you already think in terms of parts that fit together, that can be modified
a little from a previous pattern and so on - like maybe an engineer does -
then Smalltalk seems utterly natural. Even the IDE seems pleasantly like a
well organized parts catalogue.

tim

-- 
Useful random insult:- Strong, like bull.  Smart, like tractor.  Beautiful, like KV-2. (A WWII era Russian tank.)
Tim Rowledge:  rowledge at interval.com (w)  +1 (650) 842-6110 (w)
 tim at sumeru.stanford.edu (h)  <http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim>