> Smalltalk’s history is often described as slightly tragic, because many of its best ideas never permeated the culture of code. But it’s still around, still has users, and anyone can use Squeak or Pharo. Also—
>
> 1. Java is an object-oriented language, influenced by C++, that runs on a virtual machine (just like Smalltalk).
> 2. Objective-C, per its name, jammed C and Smalltalk together with no apologies.
> 3. C# (pronounced “C sharp”) is based on C and influenced by Java, but it was created by Microsoft for use in its .NET framework.
> 4. C++ is an object-oriented version of C, although its roots are more in Simula.
>
> The number of digital things conceived in 1972 that are still under regular discussion is quite small. (It was the year of The Godfather and Al Green’s Let’s Stay Together.) The world corrupts the pure vision of great ideas. I pronounce Smalltalk a raging, wild, global success.
The specious reasoning on display in this paragraph is almost offensive in its glib uncomprehension. Calling Smalltalk "a raging, wild, global success" because modern programming languages call themselves "object-oriented" is like saying women in technology are well-represented because Ada Lovelace was the first programmer.
I get that it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but like the rest of the writing in this article, it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek in a way that gestures toward what the author actually thinks. In this case, what it's gesturing at is the notion that Smalltalk has had a large-scale tangible influence (if not wholesale adoption) on modern programming languages, which, if you actually take the time to understand the subject, is just not true.
>
> 1. Java is an object-oriented language, influenced by C++, that runs on a virtual machine (just like Smalltalk).
> 2. Objective-C, per its name, jammed C and Smalltalk together with no apologies.
> 3. C# (pronounced “C sharp”) is based on C and influenced by Java, but it was created by Microsoft for use in its .NET framework.
> 4. C++ is an object-oriented version of C, although its roots are more in Simula.
>
> The number of digital things conceived in 1972 that are still under regular discussion is quite small. (It was the year of The Godfather and Al Green’s Let’s Stay Together.) The world corrupts the pure vision of great ideas. I pronounce Smalltalk a raging, wild, global success.
Except that these examples are "object-oriented" in almost none of the ways Smalltalk was object-oriented: http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html
The specious reasoning on display in this paragraph is almost offensive in its glib uncomprehension. Calling Smalltalk "a raging, wild, global success" because modern programming languages call themselves "object-oriented" is like saying women in technology are well-represented because Ada Lovelace was the first programmer.
I get that it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but like the rest of the writing in this article, it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek in a way that gestures toward what the author actually thinks. In this case, what it's gesturing at is the notion that Smalltalk has had a large-scale tangible influence (if not wholesale adoption) on modern programming languages, which, if you actually take the time to understand the subject, is just not true.