Hi Sean, I liked Simon's talk too. So following Simon's theory and start with the "why", then "how" followed by "what": Why: Why does Smalltalk (still) exist, what does the Smalltalk community believe in and probably most importantly why should anyone care? How: How does Smalltalk do what it does, how is it designed, is it usable, intuitive, powerful ...? What: What does Smalltalk do, following Sean's examples; provide developer productivity, platform independence ... Looking at the above I really have a feeling that Smalltalk's "Why" already is - and always has been - very strong. The "what" is probably another reason why Smalltalk is still around after all these years. Smalltalk does provide powerful developer productivity and did lead the way in a myriad of other areas ... which other languages and/or IDE's have since taken on board. The "how" is where Smalltalk's Achilles' heel is. Recent success stories did create a resurgence of interest in Smalltalk as it did wonders for Smalltalk's perceived usefulness. Smalltalk still needs to focus more on the "how" in order not to lose those all important opinion leaders and early adopters that are fascinated by the "why" but have a gut feeling and feel like given the "perceived ease-of-use" Smalltalk may not be exactly what they are after. Find the right recipe to improve the "how", the design, look-and-feel and usability and these early adopters will stay and Smalltalk will cross the chasm and influence the early majority :) -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Spreading-Smalltalk-tp3435227p3435954.html Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.