A lot of people don't know that Smalltalk heavily influenced NeXTSTEP and Objective-C. You'll see a lot of it in Interface Builder->Project Builder->XCode with the GUI serialization (and of course Obj-C message passing and general dynamic nature).
I really don’t remember much influence of smalltalk on interlisp at the time (I worked in the KSL, though I was working on 3Lisp so Interlisp was in theory just our implementation language…but of course boundaries were not what PARC was about.
Mesa and Cedar interested me as I got into programming languages, but I was more into Trellis/Owl (and had copies of the documentation provided to me by DEC SRC after I wrote to them).
MPS/MPL began in 1971; the Mesa name was adopted in June 1974; an Alto cross-compiler worked in spring 1975. Cedar is both a language (an extension of Mesa, e.g. by a GC, but the OO features proposed by Lampson were never implemented to my knowledge) and a development environment. I assume your claim is about the latter. The programming language doesn't have anything in common with Smalltalk, and the fundamental work even predated the latter.
We should not forget that the original Alto operating system(s) had a GUI already and was the basis of well known applications like Bravo or Gypsy; the original OS and the said OS and applications were implemente in BCPL; and all were operational before Smalltalk-76. By Wirth's first PARC visit in 1976–77, Mesa had already become a self-hosting systems-development tool (small operating system and symbolic debugger); I'm not aware of any substantial Smalltalk influence at that time.
I got to meet Brad Cox at college when he came to visit one of my professors (who I worked with after hours). I find it interesting that instead of the objects as tiny computers of Kay he thought of software ICs and then pulled from Smalltalk to implement those concepts in Objective-C, but in the simplest way possible (almost just combining the two side-by-side) as opposed to Stroustrup being more heavily influenced by Similar (especially as he was actually building simulations) and extending C into objects to gain performance that Simula didn’t have.
An another lot of people doesn't know that Smalltalk-76 onwards implemented the Simula 67 object model (as the first language in the given completeness), which represented a fundamental departure from Smalltalk-72. See the Ingalls 1978 and 2020 papers for more information (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/512760.512762 and https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3386335, both more interesting and relevant than the one in the title, written by the person who invented most of the technology we today know as Smalltalk-80).
I had the pleasure of learning OOP with Smalltalk at university back in 2002. They used it as the second language (Lisp was the first) to teach the principles. I really loved it. What I admired most was that you “lived” in your program. Later on, Java (1.4) was taught, but coming from Smalltalk, everything felt cumbersome, especially working with collections.
Of all the languages I’ve used in my professional career so far, only Ruby has sparked the same joy.
For me, it was Hamburg, Germany. They later replaced Smalltalk with Java and BlueJ, IIRC. It had a similar visual feel (you could click on a class and create an instance of it that then floated around), but it was far from pure OOP.
Somewhat related, I’ve been digesting this long but fascinating talk about the even earlier history of OOP, going all the way back to the 1950s. It’s from the perspective of someone who questions some early decisions about what OOP would become. Implementation inheritance, of course, which iirc is something Kay calls out as more accidental than principled language design decision in this paper. But also things like the physical arrangement of data in memory, and how all of this affects what kinds of problems will be easier or harder to solve.
Whenever this story (and all the related stories about PARC) re-surface, I am (writing now in late 2026) mostly sad about the incredible language that should have 'won' .. well .. everything!
The term 'footgun' unfortunately matches all too well: something so great, so powerful yet most of the time, even in the hands of well-intended folks, proceeds to shoot oneself in the foot. I was for more than a decade a professional Smalltalk developer (Telecommunications, Financial/Derivatives) but we were replaced by technically inferior systems, mostly Java, JavaScript and even VisualBasic. The HR person at the Financial company explained (after my exit interview!) that for the cost of a single Smalltalk developer, they could hire 4 or 5 lesser experienced programmers (less cognizant of how systems actually worked!). The HR folks preferred these hires: more selection, cheaper . etc. Sigh!
Am I a horrible person to enjoy so much (schadenfreude!) the upcoming AI/LLM footgun massacre?
They were the ones that almost on day one pivoted their Smalltalk offerings into Java.
Eclipse still has the Visual Age Smalltalk object browser.
If you look into OS/2 documentation, and SOM (OS/2 version of COM), you will find out Smalltalk on OS/2 had a role similar to .NET on Windows.
I think AI is the revenge of Lisp, dealing with Python without JIT, and the whole 4 GLs, CASE tooling that tried to automate programming in the 1990's, this time around it goes.
> I think AI is the revenge of Lisp, dealing with Python without JIT, and the whole 4 GLs, CASE tooling that tried to automate programming in the 1990's, this time around it goes.
Perhaps it’s because I haven’t had a coffee yet, but I’m not following/parsing this last paragraph - can you expand?
Lisp was the AI language, alongside Prolog (see Japan's 5th generation computing project).
Instead of having nice Interlisp-D and Symbolics machines with their graphical tooling, hot code reloading and machine code generation, we got Jupiter notebooks and C/C++/Fortran libraries on a pure interpreted language [0].
Additionally in the 1990's there were several efforts to move into the next level of programming, with more human like languages, CASE tooling, RUP method (with UML), most of them failed, SQL is one of the survivors, think its declarative nature.
So while not all of those ideas caught on as expected, now we get to program in natural language, use Markdown waterfall plans for agents, integrate them with Web services, seat reading email and Internet surfing until their activities are ready for review.
In low code/no code cloud platforms like Workato, Boomi and co, classical programming is already past tense.
[0] - Granted now JIT is being part of CPython roadmap, and there are some nice IDEs for Python actually.
You're not a horrible person to enjoy that. However, the schadenfreude is only in your head. 2026 is the most amazing year of building software in human history, so far.
Well, programming feels that it will get closer Smalltalk. For webdev you get pretty mature HMR, you look at the interface and sometimes just point at things and tell a model to modify it. So pretty close to live medium +short feedback loops.
If the big labs wouldn't have the incentive of hiding the code and making you rely solely on the models, you'd probably also see more inspection tools and contextual changes when the model does them.
It depends, IMHO. If op is talking about "programming", then I think they are right. If they are talking about "development", then I think you are right.
I still don't agree. Nothing is stopping you from doing programming without AI and enjoy it like an art form just like people still paint even though they can just print. On the other hand, the amount of languages, tools, paradigms available are crazy and there's always something for everyone to enjoy.
I've OCR'ed and corrected Yoot Saito's 1992 interview with Alan Kay, and also restored the missing appendix sections with illustrations that are not included in Bret's version of Alan Kay's Early History of Smalltalk, and compiled and linked together indexes of people, institutions, technologies and a timeline:
In 1993, game designer Yutaka "Yoot" Saito interviewed Alan Kay for MACWORLD Japan, for the special issue marking the Macintosh's tenth anniversary (January 1994). The conversation was recorded on cassette and later transcribed. It had only been published in Japan.
Kay covers his own path through computing history: the Flex Machine, Xerox PARC, the graphical user interface, the Dynabook concept, and the creation of Smalltalk and object-oriented programming. He and Saito also discuss networking, education, simulation, and where personal computing might go next. Saito connects these ideas to game design.
During the interview both men appear to be working from Kay's HOPL paper, The Early History of Smalltalk, and its appendices as a shared reference. When Kay says "in that," "in there," or "in the appendix," the links in the transcript point to the relevant section where it can be identified.
The interview also documents Saito's role as a bridge between Japanese game and media culture and the US computing research that produced the personal computer.
Alan Kay's Early History of Smalltalk: Complete Local Edition
This is the local reading guide for Alan Kay's HOPL paper, The Early History Of Smalltalk, together with the restored appendix material, figures, presentation transcript, discussant remarks, Q&A, and related documentation preserved in this repository.
Credit and thanks to Bret Victor for publishing the cleaned-up HTML edition of the paper body and accompanying image set at worrydream/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk. The local paper body and EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk-* PNG files are derived from Bret's public edition. The appendix Markdown files here are local readable renderings from the OCR/plain-text appendix sources and local scans.
Just yesterday I was talking with a friend who works at Instantiations [1]. They were founded in 1988, and still ship a new release every year of Smalltalk. What I find fascinating is that customers are actively building on it and seem happy.
I really wish that there was a license/version/build marketed to hobbyists:
>Call or Email for Pricing
and the upgrade pricing is four figures (per set per year I'm guessing?).
Ages ago, I actually bought a Smalltalk for Windows compiler, but never got around to doing anything with it (which I regret) --- I suppose I should try Dolphin SmallTalk....
Dad is true Smalltalk believer, used to use visual age, instantiations etc but is a happy user of pharo nowadays which is free, opensource and under active development so could give that one a try.
A lot of people don't know that Smalltalk heavily influenced NeXTSTEP and Objective-C. You'll see a lot of it in Interface Builder->Project Builder->XCode with the GUI serialization (and of course Obj-C message passing and general dynamic nature).
This is a good history:
https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-deep-history-of-your-ap...
Which then influenced Mesa, Cedar, Interlisp-D inside Xerox.
Mesa and Cedar influenced Niklaus Wirth to come up with Modula-2/Lillith and Oberon.
Which had an influence on Rob Pike, on how he developed ACME for Plan 9.
Meanwhile StrongTalk, and Objective-C ended up influencing how Java came to be, and its approach to JIT compilation.
On another track Smalltalk ends up influencing Self design, which ends up having an effect on how V8 JIT was designed.
Then there is Ruby as well.
Pity that with all of this, many still never tried what actually means to use Smalltalk.
Note that Interface Builder started as a Lisp prototype, before being acquired by NeXT.
https://paulhammant.com/2013/03/28/interface-builders-altern...
I really don’t remember much influence of smalltalk on interlisp at the time (I worked in the KSL, though I was working on 3Lisp so Interlisp was in theory just our implementation language…but of course boundaries were not what PARC was about.
Mesa and Cedar interested me as I got into programming languages, but I was more into Trellis/Owl (and had copies of the documentation provided to me by DEC SRC after I wrote to them).
The LeLisp version of Interface Builder that JMH wrote at INRIA predates the timeline in your link.
That link is the official story I am aware of, where can I read about that one?
I have a paper copy of a paper (in French) about SOS Interface. Had scans of this at one point.
There is a bit more of a timeline in a talk [1] he gave at INRIA a couple of years before he died.
[1] https://www.inria.fr/en/jean-marie-hullot-perforated-cards-i...
> Which then influenced Mesa, Cedar
In what respect? What sources for this claim do you have?
The Xerox papers on digital archive, I can try to hunt them down, see for example the one on XDE Tajo experience for Mesa.
MPS/MPL began in 1971; the Mesa name was adopted in June 1974; an Alto cross-compiler worked in spring 1975. Cedar is both a language (an extension of Mesa, e.g. by a GC, but the OO features proposed by Lampson were never implemented to my knowledge) and a development environment. I assume your claim is about the latter. The programming language doesn't have anything in common with Smalltalk, and the fundamental work even predated the latter.
Yes my claim is about the IDE experience shared across all Xerox PARC environments, and how it affected the design of each language individually.
I will hunt down the papers.
We should not forget that the original Alto operating system(s) had a GUI already and was the basis of well known applications like Bravo or Gypsy; the original OS and the said OS and applications were implemente in BCPL; and all were operational before Smalltalk-76. By Wirth's first PARC visit in 1976–77, Mesa had already become a self-hosting systems-development tool (small operating system and symbolic debugger); I'm not aware of any substantial Smalltalk influence at that time.
I got to meet Brad Cox at college when he came to visit one of my professors (who I worked with after hours). I find it interesting that instead of the objects as tiny computers of Kay he thought of software ICs and then pulled from Smalltalk to implement those concepts in Objective-C, but in the simplest way possible (almost just combining the two side-by-side) as opposed to Stroustrup being more heavily influenced by Similar (especially as he was actually building simulations) and extending C into objects to gain performance that Simula didn’t have.
An another lot of people doesn't know that Smalltalk-76 onwards implemented the Simula 67 object model (as the first language in the given completeness), which represented a fundamental departure from Smalltalk-72. See the Ingalls 1978 and 2020 papers for more information (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/512760.512762 and https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3386335, both more interesting and relevant than the one in the title, written by the person who invented most of the technology we today know as Smalltalk-80).
I still have my August 1981 BYTE at work. It and the 1980 FORTH (or TIL) greatly influenced my preferences in programming languages.
(Oh, I also have the blue book, green book and red book at work.)
I had the pleasure of learning OOP with Smalltalk at university back in 2002. They used it as the second language (Lisp was the first) to teach the principles. I really loved it. What I admired most was that you “lived” in your program. Later on, Java (1.4) was taught, but coming from Smalltalk, everything felt cumbersome, especially working with collections. Of all the languages I’ve used in my professional career so far, only Ruby has sparked the same joy.
Was it at Carleton? Ottawa seems to have a fondness for Smalltalk and seems to have been a… hotspot for it.
For me, it was Hamburg, Germany. They later replaced Smalltalk with Java and BlueJ, IIRC. It had a similar visual feel (you could click on a class and create an instance of it that then floated around), but it was far from pure OOP.
Somewhat related, I’ve been digesting this long but fascinating talk about the even earlier history of OOP, going all the way back to the 1950s. It’s from the perspective of someone who questions some early decisions about what OOP would become. Implementation inheritance, of course, which iirc is something Kay calls out as more accidental than principled language design decision in this paper. But also things like the physical arrangement of data in memory, and how all of this affects what kinds of problems will be easier or harder to solve.
https://youtu.be/wo84LFzx5nI
Whenever this story (and all the related stories about PARC) re-surface, I am (writing now in late 2026) mostly sad about the incredible language that should have 'won' .. well .. everything!
The term 'footgun' unfortunately matches all too well: something so great, so powerful yet most of the time, even in the hands of well-intended folks, proceeds to shoot oneself in the foot. I was for more than a decade a professional Smalltalk developer (Telecommunications, Financial/Derivatives) but we were replaced by technically inferior systems, mostly Java, JavaScript and even VisualBasic. The HR person at the Financial company explained (after my exit interview!) that for the cost of a single Smalltalk developer, they could hire 4 or 5 lesser experienced programmers (less cognizant of how systems actually worked!). The HR folks preferred these hires: more selection, cheaper . etc. Sigh!
Am I a horrible person to enjoy so much (schadenfreude!) the upcoming AI/LLM footgun massacre?
Blame IBM and other Smalltalk vendors.
They were the ones that almost on day one pivoted their Smalltalk offerings into Java.
Eclipse still has the Visual Age Smalltalk object browser.
If you look into OS/2 documentation, and SOM (OS/2 version of COM), you will find out Smalltalk on OS/2 had a role similar to .NET on Windows.
I think AI is the revenge of Lisp, dealing with Python without JIT, and the whole 4 GLs, CASE tooling that tried to automate programming in the 1990's, this time around it goes.
> I think AI is the revenge of Lisp, dealing with Python without JIT, and the whole 4 GLs, CASE tooling that tried to automate programming in the 1990's, this time around it goes.
Perhaps it’s because I haven’t had a coffee yet, but I’m not following/parsing this last paragraph - can you expand?
Sure.
Lisp was the AI language, alongside Prolog (see Japan's 5th generation computing project).
Instead of having nice Interlisp-D and Symbolics machines with their graphical tooling, hot code reloading and machine code generation, we got Jupiter notebooks and C/C++/Fortran libraries on a pure interpreted language [0].
Additionally in the 1990's there were several efforts to move into the next level of programming, with more human like languages, CASE tooling, RUP method (with UML), most of them failed, SQL is one of the survivors, think its declarative nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_generatio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_software_engine...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_unified_process
So while not all of those ideas caught on as expected, now we get to program in natural language, use Markdown waterfall plans for agents, integrate them with Web services, seat reading email and Internet surfing until their activities are ready for review.
In low code/no code cloud platforms like Workato, Boomi and co, classical programming is already past tense.
[0] - Granted now JIT is being part of CPython roadmap, and there are some nice IDEs for Python actually.
Interesting!
Were you using IBM Visual Age Smalltalk?
You're not a horrible person to enjoy that. However, the schadenfreude is only in your head. 2026 is the most amazing year of building software in human history, so far.
Well, programming feels that it will get closer Smalltalk. For webdev you get pretty mature HMR, you look at the interface and sometimes just point at things and tell a model to modify it. So pretty close to live medium +short feedback loops.
If the big labs wouldn't have the incentive of hiding the code and making you rely solely on the models, you'd probably also see more inspection tools and contextual changes when the model does them.
It depends, IMHO. If op is talking about "programming", then I think they are right. If they are talking about "development", then I think you are right.
I still don't agree. Nothing is stopping you from doing programming without AI and enjoy it like an art form just like people still paint even though they can just print. On the other hand, the amount of languages, tools, paradigms available are crazy and there's always something for everyone to enjoy.
I for one already have the popcorn at the ready. Can't wait for it.
What is really surprising to me is that Smalltalk was originally targeted as an educational language for children:
https://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/#smalltalkAnd...
In this way, it was the older brother of Logo, but with a core object scaffold that was far more influential.
> it was the older brother of Logo
Logo predated Smalltalk, so Smalltalk is more like an evolution on the idea and a younger brother.
EDIT: Looked up the dates. Logo was made in 1967, Smalltalk started development in 1969.
I've OCR'ed and corrected Yoot Saito's 1992 interview with Alan Kay, and also restored the missing appendix sections with illustrations that are not included in Bret's version of Alan Kay's Early History of Smalltalk, and compiled and linked together indexes of people, institutions, technologies and a timeline:
Yoot Saito Alan Kay Interview: Introduction:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
In 1993, game designer Yutaka "Yoot" Saito interviewed Alan Kay for MACWORLD Japan, for the special issue marking the Macintosh's tenth anniversary (January 1994). The conversation was recorded on cassette and later transcribed. It had only been published in Japan.
Kay covers his own path through computing history: the Flex Machine, Xerox PARC, the graphical user interface, the Dynabook concept, and the creation of Smalltalk and object-oriented programming. He and Saito also discuss networking, education, simulation, and where personal computing might go next. Saito connects these ideas to game design.
During the interview both men appear to be working from Kay's HOPL paper, The Early History of Smalltalk, and its appendices as a shared reference. When Kay says "in that," "in there," or "in the appendix," the links in the transcript point to the relevant section where it can be identified.
The interview also documents Saito's role as a bridge between Japanese game and media culture and the US computing research that produced the personal computer.
Yoot Saito Alan Kay Interview:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
A Journey Through Computing History with Yoot Saito and Alan Kay
And here are missing secions from Bret's version of Alan Kay's Early History of Smalltalk:Early History of Smalltalk, Complete:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Alan Kay's Early History of Smalltalk: Complete Local Edition
This is the local reading guide for Alan Kay's HOPL paper, The Early History Of Smalltalk, together with the restored appendix material, figures, presentation transcript, discussant remarks, Q&A, and related documentation preserved in this repository.
Credit and thanks to Bret Victor for publishing the cleaned-up HTML edition of the paper body and accompanying image set at worrydream/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk. The local paper body and EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk-* PNG files are derived from Bret's public edition. The appendix Markdown files here are local readable renderings from the OCR/plain-text appendix sources and local scans.
The Early History Of Smalltalk:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Detailed paper body index:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Appendix I: KiddiKomp Memo 45:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Appendix II: Smalltalk-72 Interpreter Design 47:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Appendix III: Acknowledgments 50:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Appendix IV: Event Driven Loop Example 53:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Appendix V: Smalltalk-76 Internal Structures 54:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Appendix VI: Smalltalk Documentation, HOPL Talk, and Discussion:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
References:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Transcript of presentation:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
And I've made some additional cross references including the Yoot Saito Interview:
People:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Institutions:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Technologies:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Timeline:
https://github.com/YootTowerManagement/YootTower/blob/main/Y...
Just yesterday I was talking with a friend who works at Instantiations [1]. They were founded in 1988, and still ship a new release every year of Smalltalk. What I find fascinating is that customers are actively building on it and seem happy.
[1] https://www.instantiations.com/
I really wish that there was a license/version/build marketed to hobbyists:
>Call or Email for Pricing
and the upgrade pricing is four figures (per set per year I'm guessing?).
Ages ago, I actually bought a Smalltalk for Windows compiler, but never got around to doing anything with it (which I regret) --- I suppose I should try Dolphin SmallTalk....
Dad is true Smalltalk believer, used to use visual age, instantiations etc but is a happy user of pharo nowadays which is free, opensource and under active development so could give that one a try.
There is Pharo (and Squeak) as a free SmallTalk.