I read the blog post from Torsten Bergman about an article he has just read and I looked after that article at OOP – A Critical Approach – and I think, that the original writer did not point out the original problems:
There are languages out there, that have a more complex syntax than Smalltalk has – that is right. But is this complexity really responsible for the (as mentioned) lower productivity ? I would not think so: actually Smalltalk in the hand of a “careless programmer” (or limited ?) is also bad.
I would also argue, that all the other languages have enough syntactical structures to enforce information hiding – but the programmers decide if they use it. Therefore it seems to be more a users problem – and not a language one.
The problem with the other languages might be, that they would like to build/offer a (forced) structured home for those “careless programmers” – perhaps because most of programmers are “careless programmers” ? – by introducing lots of keywords convering the (today hottest) computer-program analyse or design structures. This is a bad evolution – but it is much easier for large companies to work with these languages to get at least some structure in their projects.
And for all Smalltalk friends: ask what the hottest topics are today and what can
the various Smalltalk implementations offer here …