Maybe. I don't think being featured in CS education is all that interesting (for fringe languages). I was thinking more along the lines that computing is becoming way more accessible all the time (for one thing a full Smalltalk image+vm is no longer a "large" download) -- so the number of people contributing to Seaside, Pharo etc might be growing.
I also wonder a bit about Gemstone/GLASS (the ones behind the Ruby maglev vm/system).
As for packaging as others have commented on, I found[1] -- but I think things like the rise of quicklisp[2] shows that these truly powerful languages (and I think Smalltalk is indeed "lisp powerful") can spring up from the brink of death/irrelevance through the serendipitous release of a framework/tool/technique etc.
It just occurred to me that it might be interesting to implement Smalltalk on top of Racket as a language -- Racket has (seemingly) great support for creating deployable executables[3].
Unfortunately, modern smalltalk environments (pharo, squeak) are terrible compared to modern Common Lisp implementations.
The libraries are not there, monticello doesn't even support HTTPS last I checked, nevermind cryptographic signatures, they don't support concurrency via native OS threads, the FFIs are a joke (just take a look at pharo), the graphical environments are laughable (pharo and squeak look like total crap on OSX retina machines, the font rendering gives you headaches, yes it's THAT bad), performance is abysmal, I could go on for ages...
Common Lisp on the other hand has multiple mature opensource native code compilers (SBCL and CCL) that support multiple platforms, concurrency via OS threads, have amazing foreign function interfaces, performance that is close to C, optional paid support for the opensource implementations, a development environment that is more traditional but also lets you program 100% interactively from within the image without compromising when it comes to interfacing with traditional version control, also support snapshots and so on.
Smalltalk is more "dynamic" than Common Lisp and is also better (in theory)
when it comes to interactive development. But in practice, Pharo and Squeak are stuck in the 90s at best and compromise in areas that today are of paramount importance. Common Lisp doesn't and gives you all the options.
I also wonder a bit about Gemstone/GLASS (the ones behind the Ruby maglev vm/system).
As for packaging as others have commented on, I found[1] -- but I think things like the rise of quicklisp[2] shows that these truly powerful languages (and I think Smalltalk is indeed "lisp powerful") can spring up from the brink of death/irrelevance through the serendipitous release of a framework/tool/technique etc.
It just occurred to me that it might be interesting to implement Smalltalk on top of Racket as a language -- Racket has (seemingly) great support for creating deployable executables[3].
[1] http://forum.world.st/Create-a-exe-application-in-Pharo-2-0-...
[2] https://www.quicklisp.org/
[3] http://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/exe-dist.html
[4] See eg: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2068896 for an example "Adventure"-like language. Or scheme-without-parens: http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/sweet/index.html
PS: Related to Racket and languages, I also came across this nice little post:
"7 lines of code, 3 minutes: Implement a programming language from scratch" http://matt.might.net/articles/implementing-a-programming-la...