>>16
Do you know anything about those languages? Are you not aware that a programmer magically becomes more productive when freed from the idiocy of your so-called "modern" languages? I don't know where you got the idea that Smalltalk or Lisp isn't suitable for programming "real solutions", but they were both used to write real operating systems (and all the programs to run on them) before Sepples was even
invented. Ever heard of a little thing called the GUI? That was Smalltalk. And Lisp machines were not far behind.
Let me clue you in: contemporary OOP lags far behind Smalltalk or CLOS. Which is sad, considering Smalltalk had been doing it for years by the time your modern languages came along with their half-assed imitations. If you learn "modern" OOP you're learning a stone-age subset of OOP, and an artificially stone-age subset at that—OOP was more advanced when invented than your overcomplicated, wimpy "state of the art" languages.
The bottom line is that you should be thanking the programming gods that Smalltalk and Lisp haven't gone anywhere, because all the popular languages are tremendous steps backwards in every way. You can accuse me of not understanding Java if you like (and wouldn't I be missing a lot if I didn't), but
you patently don't understand Smalltalk or Lisp, which not only makes you look a little unqualified for this discussion, but is also a
MORTAL SIN. The point of learning Smalltalk (no CamelCase faggotry here) or Lisp is to clearly understand the concepts involved without the bullshit a "modern" language foists on you, to learn the techniques that "modern" languages either fail to support or make stupidly difficult, and to have a secret weapon you can use anytime you actually need to get results (as in: flexible, correct, concise programs) fast.