What you glossed over was the 'model for change' part and the implications that follow from there. It's a shame that it's not being said more clearly and expli

What you glossed over was the 'model for change' part and the implications that follow from there. It's a shame that it's not being said more clearly and explicitly in the post; but that 'model for change' implies immutable/persistent data structures and all that comes along with that. The foundational assumption that data is never deleted or updated but just garbage collected does really change a lot. Essentially (I'm hoping!) they're just saying: let's build another Smalltalk but with persistent data structures and reactive programming instead of Smalltalk's MVC model. But yeah; it does sound like they need to study the Smalltalk ecosystem a bit better to figure out that apart from those two things Smalltalk did already do pretty much everything they want to be doing here; or find a marketing angle that's less off putting to those that know Smalltalk well...