It contains "solid" articles from Leandro Caniglia and Lorenzo Schiavina.
It also contains an article about his recent programming competition (currently under way): https://smalltalk.tech.blog/2020/02/08/the-results-are-in/.
This is one heck of a competition, and it's a great promotion for Pharo!
So I'm telling all my friends and colleagues to give Smalltalk a try. Does that invalidate my efforts?
This study was published within the last decade (2017): https://www.ifpug.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IYSM.-Thirt....
It contains data for languages like Ceylon (2011), Dart (2011), Elixir (2011), F# (2005), Go (2009), Haxe (2005), and Julia (2012). So, no, not decades old.
Moreover, Haskell is an old language that has only recently come into the limelight. It's considered new-ish.
The study does contain data for languages going all the way back to the 1960s. This is a Good Thing. It means we have a statistically huge sample size which only further supports its validity.
In fact, this is the largest study of its kind. Why would anybody want a small sample size that only covers a few languages from the last 20 years???
Even Haskell hasn't done that well using this approach. With all these "from the trenches" posts, Haskell is still only #45 at TIOBE. It's #26 at PYPL and falling! In terms of pull requests at GitHub, Haskell is #28 and falling! See https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2019/2.
Is there a Python tutorial where you can learn all of Python's syntax within 15 minutes?
I'd like to encourage Smalltalk advocates to write more "from the trenches" posts. A Haskell is a great comparison: it looks like every few weeks there is a post on using Haskell in production, like [0].. Those posts work much than abstract claims of "tremendous benefits" and "magical language".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22308771