> This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
>
> Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.

Come on exploration and dynamism is not equal to toy.
Squeak is a dynamic environment but this is not a toy.
The fact that you interact easily with the objects that populate it
does nto mean that this is a toy.

> Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy. Aversion to
> toys is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the worst thing that is
> taught to programmers (adults?) today. Playing is the only way
> to make new ideas. One must enjoy playing before they can
> understand the purpose of Squeak. Until they realize "Squeak is
> a Toy, and I am OK with that", they are missing the point. A
> clean object memory, simple syntax, and easy debugging are just
> implementation issues. The point of Squeak is to have fun
> building; after that, everything else falls into place.

Lot of code could be much cleaner and we would be able to inent much  
faster
new things.

> - Everyone wants a consistent interface

Do you want a system where each window has a totally different key  
binding.
Consistency is good.

> - You need complicated software to develop software
> - You need to go through the university system to be a
>   programmer

Why not, if you can get a nice teacher teaching what you want to learn.
I would pay to get the teachers that can teach me what I want to learn.

> - Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and
>   active ones with real ideas)
> - Don't play with toys; do your work