Why Objective-Smalltalk is (not) a Smalltalk

Yet. A Smalltalk languages, Smalltalk and C, it is rather large and unwieldy, with weird overlaps and other oddities. I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing This is understandable: when Smalltalk was created there simply wasn't a "rest of the world" Yet. A Smalltalk languages, Smalltalk and C, it is rather large and unwieldy, with weird overlaps and other oddities. I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing This is understandable: when Smalltalk was created there simply wasn't a "rest of the world" A Smalltalk languages, Smalltalk and C, it is rather large and unwieldy, with weird overlaps and other oddities. I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing languages, Smalltalk and C, it is rather large and unwieldy, with weird overlaps and other oddities. I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing languages, Smalltalk and C, it is rather large and unwieldy, with weird overlaps and other oddities. I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing languages, Smalltalk and C, it is rather large and unwieldy, with weird overlaps and other oddities. I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing I don't know of a better choice than the Smalltalk (keyword) message syntax. and almost all "language" features implemented as objects and messages without special Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing Smalltalk also integrates well conceptually and syntactically with Cocoa and Objective-C, my preferred environment, a point not lost on the plethora of Smalltalk-based scripting languages available for Cocoa and GNUstep. Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing Not a Smalltalk So given all the arguments for Smalltalk, surely Objective-Smalltalk is based on one of the existing