> Well that's not very similar to a Ruby or Python process then, is it? Actually, that is very similar, particularly since Ruby's design is so patterned on Sma

> Well that's not very similar to a Ruby or Python process then, is it? Actually, that is very similar, particularly since Ruby's design is so patterned on Smalltalk. > And those processes are short lived and built from scratch on every execution. Ummm, no. When running a simple script, maybe, but for a whole host of applications you have processes that run for a very, very long time. > But you have to recreate the world. No, you really don't. There were certainly purists who argued for that, but there's nothing about the language that requires that at all. It's actually got a pretty nice FFI. > Looking at files, I looked up "using git with smalltalk" and got the GitHub list of Smalltalk projects: https://github.com/trending?l=smalltalk https://github.com/trending?l=smalltalk The Smalltalk world has had some pretty sweet version management for a long time, and of course the language hasn't had much adoption for a long time, so I don't think the Smalltalk code on GitHub is terribly representative. > The "people are just too stupid to realize" argument for Smalltalk is a terrible argument, and a terrible way to build something better. If I am going to ask why Smalltalk didn't achieve the success it deserved, I will look to Smalltalk, not to the world. Like a lot of languages, the community is what matters, and unfortunately the Smalltalk community wasn't stewarded terribly well for a while there, so I'd say the the outcome is function of how Smalltalk engaged the world, and the reality that sometimes you just don't succeed, regardless.