> Why do you have to find names for closure arguments? I don't know why do you have to find names for arguments in functions/methods either? You are missing th

> Why do you have to find names for closure arguments? I don't know why do you have to find names for arguments in functions/methods either? You are missing the point. What Kotlin gets right here is that most of the time, these closures only have one parameter so it allows you to not declare that parameter and instead, use `it`. Smalltalk (and many other languages) missed that simple quality of life improvement, but once you get used to it, it really makes the code more readable. Obviously, you can always decide to pick your own name anyway, so Kotlin's approach subsumes Smalltalk's here. > I think Smalltalk seems "quirky" compared to your Kotlin example only becuase we've all gotten used to a standardized C-inspired syntax. My examples are not complaining that Smalltalk uses [] instead of {}, please reread what I wrote. Smalltalk is making a lot of bizarre syntactic choices that really only impede readability with unnecessary symbols (e.g. the . terminator).