Frank,

> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you
> mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk,
> then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards"
> 15 years and older.

While to many people "Smalltalk" is the same as "Smalltalk-80", I prefer
a definition what includes Smalltalk-72 as a Smalltalk. Any such
definition would most certainly include Self and Slate as Smalltalks
too.

Sort of like the confusion about "Free Software", I got tired of
explaining my viewpoint regarding my Self/R design and simply renamed it
to Neo Smalltalk instead.

I do note that none of the various SqueakFests were about Squeak but
rather about Etoys. So I agree that "Squeak Smalltalk" (which happens to
be the term I use in all my papers) makes exactly what we are talking
about very clear without restricting any future options.

There was a time when the term "Smalltalk" caused very negative
reactions and several projects tried to distance themselves from it. But
that was when Java was new and needed agressive marketing. I feel that
the current situation is entirely different.

-- Jecel