I don’t think I’m being unfair. Again, I emphasize that this is my interpretation of the truth. There is no such thing as absolute truth.
In your view, Mathematica and Smalltalk are on the same footing. You’ve presented your argument to support your position. Not everyone will agree with it. Certainly, I don’t.
I’ve presented my argument and clearly you do not agree with it. That’s fine.
I believe history matters. Smalltalk’s storied past justifies its position as a “major” language. Mathematica is still a relative historical unknown.
Yes, if you hang around the right people, Mathematica is well-known. That applies to just about any language…Clojure, Elixir, Erlang, Haskell, Julia, OCaml, Racket, Rust. Even MUMPS! (BTW, I checked at Indeed and MUMPS has far more job postings than does Mathematica. But I would never call MUMPS a major language.)
However, I am confident that if you poll 100 developers completely at random and ask them to list the Top 20 most influential programming languages, Smalltalk will be on most of their lists, and Mathematica will be extemely lucky to be on a handful of them. I’d even bet money on it.
That’s where I’m coming from. I’m sorry if you think that’s unfair. We shall have to agree to disagree.