I love so much about Smalltalk but also felt many frustrations with implementations and community issues.

A couple of me own rants on that include from 2007:
"[Edu-sig] Comments on Kay's Reinvention of Programming proposal (was Re: More Pipeline News)"
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2007-March/007822....
"There is once again the common criticism leveled at Smalltalk of being
too self-contained. Compare this proposal with one that suggested making
tools that could be used like telescope or a microscope for relating to
code packages in other languages -- to use them as best possible on
their own terms (or perhaps virtualized internally). Consider how the
proposal suggests scripting all the way down -- yet how are the
scripting tools built in Squeak? Certainly not with the scripting
language. And consider there are always barriers to any system -- where
you hit the OS, or CPU microcode, or proprietary hardware
specifications, or even unknowns in quantum physics, and so on. :-) So
every system has limits. But by pretending this one will not, this
project may miss out on the whole issue of interfacing to systems beyond
those limits in a coherent way. For example -- OpenGL works, and
represents an API that has matured over a quarter century, and is linked
with lots of hardware and software implementations; why not build on it
instead of "bitblt"?. Or consider how Jython can use Java Swing
libraries and other such Java libraries easily. Consider this example of
proposed failure: the proposal's decision to punt on printing -- no
focus there in difficulties of interfacing with a diversity of OS
services as a guest -- of relating to prior art. This is where Python
often shines as a system (language plus libraries plus community) -- and
Python is based on a different design philosophy or perhaps different
design ethic. Python has also prioritized "modularity" from the
beginning, which has made a lot of these issues more manageable; Kay's
proposal talks a lot about internal integration, but the word
"modularity" is not even in the document. In this sense, I think Kay's
group are repeating mistakes of the past and also dodging another very
difficult issue -- one that Python somehow has more-or-less gotten right
in its own way. It's their right to do their own thing; just pointing
out a limitation here."

And later from 2010:
"[fonc] On inventing the computing microscope/telescope for the dynamic semantic web"
https://www.mail-archive.com/fonc@vpri.org/msg01445.html
"As I said at the end of my second post linked above: "It's taken a while for me to see this, but, with JavaScript, essentially each web page can be seen like a Smalltalk ObjectMemory (or text-based image like PataPata writes out). While I work towards using the Pointrel System to add triples in a declarative way, in practice, the web of calling cgi scripts at URLs is a lot like message passing (just more like the earlier Smalltalk-72 way without well-defined syntax). So, essentially, a web of HTML pages with JavaScript and CGI on servers is like the Smalltalk system written large. :-) Just in a very ad hoc and inelegant way. :-)""

The sourceforge link in that post rotter; that last quoted text can now be found at:
"Re: [PataPata-discuss] Thinking on PataPata four years later..." https://sourceforge.net/p/patapata/mailman/message/26393156/