smalltalkers

What you describe is what many Smalltalkers did as well: create your own control structures and DSLs.

Coming from the statically typed world the distinction is often unclear but for the original Smalltalkers and other OO purists object orientation was never about classes.

And all that on top of mainstream languages gaining more and more features which Smalltalkers are used to.

Programming language, like the lispers and smalltalkers, the rubyists and the haskellers, the C++ fanatics and the C faithful...

This is also why LightTable finally got across what Smalltalkers had been raving about.

Yegge's right––specifically, he's right about Java, whose object-orientation many longtime Smalltalkers would frankly dispute.

No idea about his programming skills, but I have read Kent Beck's Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns and it is pretty useful and it was often recommended to both Smalltalkers and non-Smalltalkers.

Lots of Lispers and Smalltalkers would roll their eyes at this.

I am reminded of how Smalltalkers got a chip on their shoulder from the circumstance of Smalltalk's significant differences from mainstream.

But maybe other smalltalkers could chime in with features I am not aware of.

I would recomend it for both mature and beginning smalltalkers aiming at web programming itself as well as learning Smalltalk programming in general.

Off the cuff comment, just before I go to watch the video: Here's something that Smalltalkers didn't like to talk about during the height of the Java vs.

(This includes unintentionally being a bad security-defaults minefield.) Smalltalkers had the same "read the source" knee-jerk.

But while others get to tremble in fear of imagined disasters, we Smalltalkers get to know the truth: that lots of the "conventional wisdom" is nonsense!

If you want to understand what made Smalltalkers so smug, then grab you a Smalltalk manual and take the time to learn it [and here Knuth's patient approach to "really knowing" is informative...and there's a Norvig short course for just-get-to-the-point Pythonistas].

The good Smalltalkers would code in a such a way, that people could rapidly and completely figure out what "type" was in every variable, and reliably keep track of all implicit "Interfaces." So of what value was Smalltalk, if you had to do all that manual work?

Smalltalkers had it right: > If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual.

Smalltalkers used to complain that: Smalltalk uses less code to do the same thing.

Your preference in interfaces is also the one preferred by better Smalltalkers.