"computes answers to questions" applies to any system with a REPL. That's really not a technical term at all. If you want to be more precise, you could say pro

"computes answers to questions" applies to any system with a REPL. That's really not a technical term at all. If you want to be more precise, you could say prolog tries to satisfy the goal it's passed (via unification and resolution). That's not the same as the call/return paradigm. The only unifying concept (heh) for these two is, well, "computes something". Anyway, for me, that confirms that your statements are not grounded in anything but vague terms you throw around, like "algorithmic". If you want to convince people that your flavor of smalltalk is actually, qualitatively _more expressive_ than all the hundreds of other languages, you're going to have to define a precise notion of expressiveness and show that only your system matches it. Since you've recognized that it's just about being more expressive, since you can write anything in any language; you probably also need to have cold numbers on how much more expressive objective-S is.