Kinda. I think what Ruby is missing is how minimalist Smalltalk is and how many of the primitives in Smalltalk are implemented in itself. To give you an example

Kinda. I think what Ruby is missing is how minimalist Smalltalk is and how many of the primitives in Smalltalk are implemented in itself. To give you an example of what I'm talking about, in Smalltalk an if statement is implemented by sending a message to a boolean, like: someBool ifTrue: [ "some block to execute" ]. In that context, either the "True" object receives the message and executes the block, or the "False" object receives the message and doesn't execute it. (Or even some user defined object that just happens to have an ifTrue: message handler). (Sorry I might be a little off on the syntax and exact details, my Smalltalk is rusty) Loops and such are also similar. Granted most of these things probably end up being implemented in native code on a practical level for performance, but conceptually it's a very small language. Most of the standard library and IDE is written in itself. Ruby definitely has a lot of flexibility, but it also has way more built-ins and much more separation between "interpreter code" and "user code" I think this is what people are missing when they bring up the point that messages and method calls seem very similar. In a practical sense yes, but the smalltalk style message system is more about messages being a fundamental building block of the entire system.