I looked (again) at Smalltalk maybe 5 years ago, and concluded that it didn't offer enough over more recent and more familiar OO languages to warrant a switch. So I guess my answer is that it introduced nice ideas, then everybody else stole them, so you no longer need Smalltalk to use them.

As a result of growing interest in functional programming, there is a large blanket hatred of OO emerging, particularly from newbies who see the two paradigms as intrinsically opposed, and who have acquired bad tastes from the standard polymorphism/encapsulation/inheritance languages that most people know as OO.

Smalltalk gets swept under the rug as well in the process.

Exactly! As mentioned in the article, Alan Kay's vision of OOP was corrupted into the rubbish we see today in C++, Java, Scala, etc. Today's conventional OOP is nothing more than an extension to Abstract Data Types...useful, but not nearly as powerful as Smalltalk's "true" OOP (https://medium.com/@richardeng/getting-the-message-667d77ff7...).

The only appropriate answer to the IDE part is this:

JEREMY CLARKSON: You mention that you rent a garage.

JAMES MAY: Yes.

JEREMY CLARKSON: How far away from your house?

JAMES MAY: I don't know. Seven miles?

JEREMY CLARKSON: You rent a garage seven miles from your house! How do you get there?

JAMES MAY: On... on my folding bicycle, obviously.

JEREMY CLARKSON: You are mad! Clinically insane!

I've always suspected that at the point Smalltalk needed to shine to get a generation of coders on board, the ridiculous cost of an industrial strength Smalltalk dev environment ran most of them off. Smalltalk never recovered.

Exactly right! Smalltalk never recovered because of its PR problem. Smalltalk has been free (or inexpensive) for over 15 years now.