Indeed. But I would'n consider this a "feature" though: the easiest to read syntax I've seen is that of Python, with the "classic" (by classic I mean "C++/Java like") `.` and `(` clearly separating the message receiver, message name, and message parameters, plus indentation based syntax - nothing beats this combo for quickly scanning foreign code, even without syntax highlighting :)

I am python coder. Smalltalk is much more readable than Python and so is Lisp.

I dont know why you think dots and parentheses make things easier to read. Maybe its a matter of preferences , but even though I have grown up with this style , I dont find it more readable than smalltalk.

I dont see

Door.open(1,3,30)

as more readable to

Door open: 1 times: 3 andCloseAfterMilliseconds: 30

And this is exactly how python code works and how smalltalk works too. Also smalltalk culture is oriented towards clean code alot more than python world. You will rarely see methods in pharo more than a few lines long. And if you do , is most likely that code has not been cleaned up. And I find that a huge plus even more than the syntax itself.

Of course if I had to choose without smalltalk, then python would be my first choice for readability. But still nowhere near as to how easy I understand smalltalk , even though I am using it for less than a year.

Definitely a matter of taste then. The other think I like about Python and why I find it more readable is the usage of snake_case instead of camelCase. I'd take

    Door.open(1, times=3, close_after_ms=30)

over

    Door open: 1 times: 3 andCloseAfterMilliseconds: 30

anytime :)

doable with smalltalk too

Door open: 1 times: 3 and_close_after_ms: 30

also please note here, that python does not usually use keyword arguments. Unless for cases of optional arguments.

So the python you wrote is completely doable of course, BUT not that used as often. So it will be Door.open(1,3,30) a lot more than Door.open(1, times=3, close_after_ms=30).

This is where smalltalk shines, its culture. Those code habits that make a difference. Especially when you have to read tons of code.

When you read message send, you can understand easily what that message sent is doing. While a Door.open(1,3,30) will not reveal exactly what the method is doing. Or what that arguments mean and you will have to look into the documentation to figure things out.

This emphasis on workflow is what set for me smalltalk apart from other programming languages and enviroments. Its not a preference thing, its actually 100% practical and easily measured as workflow enhancement. And keyword arguments based coding is just one of the enhancements that smalltalk offers.

aBlock := [:times :delay | times timesRepeat: [ door open. (Delay milliseconds:delay) wait. door close ]].

aBlock value: 3 value: 30.

This is valid Smalltalk code, but not the way you'd program a door in Smalltalk.

You'd probably prototype this in a Workspace, then create the method suggested above, which would force you to specify keys for the arguments, thus forcing you to make your code cleaner and more readable.

completely agree with you. I am no big fan of blocks myself and I try to use them as sparse as possible. Keeping things simple is the way to go unless you have a good reason to do otherwise.