> 
> Smalltalk in general, and Squeak in particular, is no better at very
> large applications than other languages.  Its lack of modularity can
> make it worse.  Where it shines is when it allows a system that would
> otherwise need 50 people to be built with a small number.
> 
> There have been a number of Smalltalk projects with dozens, sometimes
> hundreds, of people on them.  None have been successful.  On large
> projects, politics and management issues overwhelm technical decisions
> and the value of Smalltalk gets lost.  If you can keep the group of
> developers small then the technical advantages of Smalltalk can
> dominate.
> 
> -Ralph Johnson

This is not my experience.  What I have noticed is that very large companies
that focus on Smalltalk alone do quite well.  They are able to build very
powerful systems with a large number of developers with no problem.  The
product they develop has created a definite advantage.  The problems that I
have seen is when political decisions and hype for changing to something
like C++, .net or Java fragments the development group into competing camps.
In almost every case that I've seen where Smalltalk was going to be replaced
with something like Java, the replacement has failed.  Many groups have
given up their Java efforts to focus again on Smalltalk, or have failed
outright.  

Ron Teitelbaum