>>18
I don't believe you. You said you wouldn't expect me to program "real solutions" outside of educational purposes in one of those languages. I took that to mean that you don't consider them usable for such a purpose. No? Or did you mean that the only reason to create "real solutions" (which I assume is
ENTERPRISE-ese for a computer program intended for serious use) is if you are paid by someone else to do it? In which case, fie on you.
In either case, your basic premise, that it is best to learn the minimum required to be hired as a programmer (c.f. "...I just don't see the point in learning SmallTalk just to later learn Java/C#/C++." —
>>16) rather than learning the maximum possible in order to be a
good programmer, is stupid.
And I didn't say that Smalltalk "help[ed to] change what programming has become today" (what kind of pansy statement is that, anyway?). I said that programming today is but the merest shit-encrusted husk of what Smalltalk has had going on for decades. The difference being one of evolution versus total degeneration (it's kind of significant).
I don't feel the need to defend the great languages which arose in the past—but I do feel a great need to speak out against the poor languages of the present (you may now note that I say nothing about the good and great languages of the present). If a person is looking to
educate themselves and get a quality tool in the process, your linguistic Morlocks won't cut it. If a person is looking to do the bare minimum to get "PROGRAMMER" stamped on their résumé, by all means, wallow in filth.