1) Paul is not ignorant of the existence of Smalltalk
2) Smalltalk is not a replacement for the fruits of modern language research. In fact, the academic work around Smalltalk is nothing more than unsupported opinion, and it's not even remotely useful as a source of research.
Parent was out of line but there is still plenty of modern academic research occurring around Smalltalk. Not to mention Gilad's Newspeak (which may or may not be academic, you'd have to ask him).
1) Posits new conjectures
2) Proves those conjectures
3) Those conjectures can be used to formulate new conjectures that conform to items 1-3?
I've read a great deal of smalltalk literature, and I can't recall any papers that would qualify. There's plenty of empirical exploration of ambiguous hypothesis, but nothing that actually provides anyone in the field anything on which they could actually build.
1) Paul is not ignorant of the existence of Smalltalk
2) Smalltalk is not a replacement for the fruits of modern language research. In fact, the academic work around Smalltalk is nothing more than unsupported opinion, and it's not even remotely useful as a source of research.