any smalltalkers here?

anyone here like using the most underrated language of the last 40 years?

Yeah, underrated, sure.

There is no sense in which Smalltalk is underrated. Underused, maybe, but not underrated.

Smalltalk is certainly underrated in the ENTERPRISE sense

Smalltalk is like the shitty semantics of Sepples with the shitty syntax of objective-C.

I have autism, i dont like smalltalk.

Like? Yes. Use? No.

It's a beautiful language, but what will you use it for?

>>7
eroge

>>8
I like your thinking.

>>9
I like your soft tender anus

>>10
I lol'd

>>8
Surely this is a job better suited for Inform 7.

>>12
Or HSP.

Smalltalk is too snobbish to be a real programming language.("I am too cool to hang out with real OS! I'll slowly seat in my own image here"). It use completely foreign and contrintuitive UI and terms like "red mouse button"(I'm looking at you, squeak). And it's not just foreign to all OSes out there, it also sucks. More than Swing.

>>15
"red mouse button"
Traumatised for life.

>>14
Alan Kay the inventor of Smalltalk based much of the ideas of Smalltalk on Lisp. He invented it through is interactions with people at the MIT AI lab. Scheme was originally meant to be a Smalltalk like language but much of it was scraped and only a stripped down version of it remains.

>>15
Squeak was developed at Apple, perhaps thats how people associate the snobbish UI with. It is overwhelming when you first use it because most windows and *nix programmers are accustomed to importing libraries and learning toolkits to do anything graphical. What once you get to know your way around the UI I think it seems like the logical way of doing things.

Scheme was originally meant to be a Smalltalk like language but much of it was scraped and only a stripped down version of it remains.
That's a mutant version of its history.

>>5
smalltalk has completely different semantics from C++

>>15
In Smalltalk's defense, it really is too cool to hang out with your shit.

That's a mutant version of its history.
lets see what wikipedia says about this mutant version of history:

On the wikipedia page for Scheme, under the origin section it says:

/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29#Origin
Scheme started as an attempt to understand Carl Hewitt's Actor model, for which purpose Steele and Sussman wrote a "tiny Lisp interpreter" using Maclisp and then "added mechanisms for creating actors and sending messages."

"Actor model" is highlighted blue in the proceding sentence which means its a link to another wikipedia page, when I click it then I read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model
In computer science, the Actor model is a mathematical model of concurrent computation  that treats "actors" as the universal primitives of concurrent digital computation: in response to a message that it receives, an actor can make local decisions, create more actors, send more messages, and determine how to respond to the next message received.

further down on the Actor Model wikipedia page it mentions something about Smalltalk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model#Smalltalk
Alan Kay was influenced by message passing in the pattern-directed invocation of Planner in developing Smalltalk-71. Hewitt was intrigued by Smalltalk-71 but was put off by the complexity of communication that included invocations with many fields including global, sender, receiver, reply-style, status, reply, operator selector, etc.

>>21
Scheme is a stripped down Lisp with lexical scoping. It still shares a lot of features with older Lisps. However, it was the origin of lexical scoping and the way closures work, and this influenced future languages (and Lisps such as Common Lisp). Sussman implemented the Actor model, but then realized it was mostly equivalent to function/closure passing.

Smalltalk's creator did not learn a Lisp before inventing it, although he later realized that his language mirrored some concepts that Lisps had. It's also believed that if he encountered Lisps before inventing Smalltalk, he might have taken a different path, or not invent it altogether, because it might have been "just good enough" for his needs. If you want details on this, I suggest you read the interview in "Coders at work".

>>21
It's correct to say that if you also consider Scheme to be based on Simula, or whatever.
As for your other assertion, Guy Steele realised that the code for lambda (procedure creator) and alpha (actor creator) were the exact same, so he made it one thing. Scheme wasn't stripped down any more than folding two similar pieces of code into a function is stripping your code down.

No, I'm mediocre at small talk.

>>22
Smalltalk's creator did not learn a Lisp before inventing it, although he later realized that his language mirrored some concepts that Lisps had.
He'd already read Lisp's implementation/definition (which was about a page in those days) before coming up with Smalltalk.