[sannysanoff]

I was always amazed that the smalltalk environment looks like a complete computer control - a paradise for a programmer and a hacker, and a creator. It's surprising that it didn't take off. Probably too much openness reflects the internal openness of the smalltalk creator to the world, but the outside world, unfortunately, did not reciprocate. Especially if we pay attention to Apple's success with completely closed devices, suitable only for content consumption.

[pjmlp]

Smalltalk as platform did take off, that is why the famous GoF book uses Smalltalk and C++, even though many think Java is somehow on a book that predates it for about three years.

All the IBM's Visual Age line of IDEs were written in Smalltalk, and in a way it was the ".NET" of OS/2.

SOM (OS/2 COM) supported it natively, and one biggest difference to COM is that it supports meta-classes and proper inheritance, language agnostic.

What made Smalltalk lose industry mindshare was exactly Java.

When it came out, some major vendors, like IBM, pivoted all the way into Java, leaving Smalltalk behind.

It is no accident that Eclipse was designed by some of the GoF authors, and it is initially a rewrite of Visual Age underlying platform from Smalltalk to Java.

Eclipse even to this day has a Smalltalk like code browser.

It wasn't only the IDEs, some famous Java libraries, like JUnit, started their life as Smalltalk libraries.

Now as full OS, yes that never really took off.

Note not all Smalltalk vendors switched to Java, that is why Dolphin and Cincom Smalltalk are still around.

[djmips]

And as you hint at C# later and honestly it sometimes feels like the Unity game IDE took up the throne of Smalltalk with it's Smalltalk derived language and it's interactive IDE. What do you think?

[igouy]

> not all Smalltalk vendors switched to Java

Cincom only acquired the VisualWorks Smalltalk software after ParcPlace had unsuccessfully rebranded as ObjectShare in response to the emergence of free as in beer Java.

[badc0ffee]

Suitable only for content consumption - only if you define content narrowly as software/apps.

[criddell]

And when you use that narrow definition you have to remember that all those apps were made on Apple devices.

A broader definition of content would include things you read, listen to, or watch and lots of writers, musicians, and film makers do a lot of their work on Apple hardware.

The suitable only for content consumption claim just doesn’t hold up.