@xgqt @nyx honestly, what is there to like about Smalltalk the language? Like Lisp (and Forth? Definitely, Erlang and ML too!), it has a small core to build "everything" on, including base libraries ... except the runtime and graphics.

Does anything I can appreciate about Squeak so far - incredible 30-odd MB runtime on all 3 PC platforms with windowing and more, source code handling not hobbled by files - have anything to do with Smalltalk in particular? It seems like Lisp or Erlang too would have had such capabilities with the same focus in their engineering (probably better, due to more code being provably side-effect-free).

To be clear, I will be happy to be in the dynamic typing camp as well as the GC'd language camp (@nodefunallowed@mas.to posted about BDW GC freeing more memory than programmer 'free()' calls!). Ditto about malleable running programs, which Squeak et al take to heights with persistent images. And I won't complain about syntax or lack of it.