If you look at the actual semantics of classes and objects in C++ and Java, they're arguably closer to Simula than they are to Smalltalk. In C++, this is even more evident by the fact that even some of the syntax is reused, such as "virtual" (although in Simula it originally meant what we today call "abstract").
The difference between the two is that Smalltalk methods semantics are message passing. In Simula, method calls are just that, function calls generalized to have a receiver. And Java follows that pattern.
If Java was a direct descendant of Smalltalk, it would look a lot different. For one thing, it would have a lot less syntax baked into the language, and a lot more closures, from the get go.
I just provided direct quotes from one of the creators of Java, sorry but you're simply wrong to argue you know better what inspired them than they did. Java is a decedent of Smalltalk via Objective C, that is simply a fact. It's well known and accepted they took syntax from C++ as deliberate attempt to entice C++ programmers into Java, that is not evidence they didn't base their inspiration on Smalltalk.
And I quote..
> When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought
Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++. So, naturally when I stayed to start the eventually) Java project, Obj-C had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed from liberally.
Perhaps what inspired them and what their creation most resembles are not necessarily the same thing. It would do some good if both you and your parent poster could agree or disagree with that statement.
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. Regardless of what inspired the development of Java (and as this quote makes clear, both Smalltalk and Simula were on the list), the result clearly bears more semblance to Simula.
A relatively simple mental exercise to prove the point is to look at various Simula and Smalltalk constructs, and see how well they map to Java (1.0) constructs. For Simula, you'll find a nearly 1:1 correspondence on syntax alone, with nested functions being the primary pain point. With Smalltalk, you'd stumble as soon as you run into the first block.
The difference between the two is that Smalltalk methods semantics are message passing. In Simula, method calls are just that, function calls generalized to have a receiver. And Java follows that pattern.
If Java was a direct descendant of Smalltalk, it would look a lot different. For one thing, it would have a lot less syntax baked into the language, and a lot more closures, from the get go.