Ruby is missing two of the most important "good parts" of Smalltalk: 1) its absolute simplicity and minimalism of syntax; and 2) its live coding/debugging environment. Ruby syntax can be a bit gnarly, esp. its "Perlisms."

How did object-oriented programming derive from C? Umm... C++?

WTF???

Do you even know what the word "derives" mean? C did not provide any contribution to OOP at all. C++ was the result of cobbling OOP features on top of C – that's not "derivation" in any sense of the word. And C++'s OOP features came from Simula. C had nothing to do with it.

Um, who paid for this article???

Smalltalk has been commercially used for over three decades. It’s not some esoteric, academic language but a truly practical, industrial tool. Cincom’s and GemTalk’s websites list some of the companies they’ve served from all kinds of industries, including JPMorgan, Desjardins, UBS, Florida Power & Light, Texas Instruments, Telecom Argentina, Orient Overseas Container Lines, etc.

Smalltalk has a unique “live coding and debugging” IDE that is largely responsible for its incredible productivity. This feature is unmatched by anything in mainstream programming. While IDEs such as Visual Studio and Eclipse have tried to incorporate live coding, they fail to be as easy and elegant as Smalltalk.

Smalltalk is beautifully simple and elegant making it extremely easy to learn. It virtually has no syntax! What other language has this quality? Maybe Scheme. Maybe Logo. Certainly not Python, Ruby, JavaScript, PHP.

I didn't realize that programming languages were supposed to give you "insights." I always thought they were just tools for expressing algorithms. Silly me...

How did functional programming, represented by languages like Clojure, Erlang, Haskell, derive from C??? How did object-oriented programming derive from C?

Neither is Clojure, F#, Erlang, Elixir, Elm, Dart, Julia, Rust, Kotlin. Does that mean we shouldn't use these languages?