The first thing which we see is the strange syntax, the strange environment, but we forget to see that everything is connected with the initial vision.

This is the real problem. This “detail” that is the switch of view is harder than learning Java on itself.

That is why we don’t see more ST and Logo Development around (which can both be seriously programmed, despite the popular belief), or, say, more Lisp, that is reasonably similar to Logo in many aspects.

I think the majority of newcomers have this misundestanding about the real purpose. The first thing which we see is the strange syntax, the strange environment, but we forget to see that everything is connected with the initial vision: the computer working for the human development, and not the computers dictating the human behavior.

Read too The Early History of Smalltalk. in the future, if I will have enough talent…;-), I will demostrate better my point of view.

The fact is that no language is such, but you can for sure make a language that reuses things that lousy programmers know. Java is like this. Starting on the syntax similar to C and to the extent that is not fully OO.

So, you have the scalability of OO and the hability to hire lousy programmers to work on lousy projects.

Smalltalk is far too different from anything else. Even if it is simpler (I don’t know enough ST to state so, but, IF it is…) is harder to do the change, because of the differences.

(try to teach a lousy programmer, how to do math in message order instead on operator precedence, after they already spent a lot of time complaining about math in his/her life)

But as far as I know ST, I agree that our world (the one in which us, developers live) would be far better if Steve Jobs had had a little more patience when he visited PARC.