"...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...."

I don't think Smalltalk was designed for children. After the fact, after they had
designed something they were meant to design, they intended to weld it to 
they most noble cause they could find. I think it's historically inaccurate to say
Smalltalk was designed for children. I think like a lot of things, like Croquet, 
people follow their muse and create something beautiful. Then they try to 
find a purpose for it. 

So Smalltalk is not a failure because it was designed for children. Because 
it wasn't designed for children. And if you look a the intent of helping 
children with computers, the OLPC looks like a success to me. 

This fellow doesn't seem to distinguish between Smalltalk and OOP. OOP
is a success. It's everywhere. Lots of people do it, so how hard can it be?

I always feel people who try to talk this way about Smalltalk are trying to 
invalidate the fun I'm having with the language, because it's not popular 
and it's not making people rich. As far as I'm concerned, this guy's close
to telling me how I'm supposed to be having sex. 

The funniest part of his saying Smalltalk failed (qualified with a "fundamentally"
of course. Another loose, imprecise use of the English language IMHO) is that seven 
years ago, when I bought Squeak: Learn Programming With Robots, this fellow had 
never heard of the Smalltalk. Now he's blogging about. Say what you will, our balloon 
rises to greater visibility with every passing year. 

Chris 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20120211/37135b59/attachment.htm