It's impossible to just read about Smalltalk and poke around a bit, and think one knows. The language itself is a tiny part of things, and one needs to really g

It's impossible to just read about Smalltalk and poke around a bit, and think one knows. The language itself is a tiny part of things, and one needs to really get immersed in the environment to really appreciate things. Maybe you know better, the author could have put things better. But I am sure a lot of people don't know, I know I was one of them. Even after a long time Smalltalker gave an enthusiastic (to put it mildly) 2 hour demo. Now I've become the rabidly enthusiastic one, but most people think I am passionate about historical programming languages. What other environment can you trivially do this: - can't find a method, but know what you want: provide sample inputs and an output, and (at least Pharo and Squeak Smalltalk) will find you all methods that produce the output. - trouble visualizing relationships while debugging? Script some code in a few minutes that become part of your debugger to see what is going on. - really code live - there is "hot swapping", but it's something bolted onto a rigid foundation, and eventually fails. In Smalltalk, it's a foundational element. Though the author could have put things differently, it can be difficult when so much that is mainstream feels so primitive, with layer upon layer of cruft bolted on. Programming in Smalltalk is uninterrupted bliss, then I go to work and use tools that have roots that predate Smalltalk, but Smalltalk is talked about as the "old" curiosity. Excuse the rant - Smalltalk makes me feel like I am using a polished and refined set of tools, and then day to day I run around with crude stone tools, the "modern" way. I think the author feels the same way.