I think looking at Smalltalk will answer a lot of your questions. Smalltalk is exactly what you're describing: a language built for an IDE. It can't be used outside the IDE, as it doesn't store its data in plain text, but rather an image format. The IDE provides all sort of nice features and analysis to the user, and ideas from Smalltalk have influenced many other languages and IDEs since its creation in the 1970s. So why aren't we all using Smalltalk? I think the key lies in interoperability. Smalltalk is a world of its own. It doesn't interoperate well with tools that exist outside of the Smalltalk world. For example, you can't really benefit from git when you can't understand how to merge code in a binary image format. When I need to accomplish a specific task (say, some sort of build task), I need to know how to accomplish everything I need in the Smalltalk world, using its tools. Smalltalk goes against the unix philosophy: it doesn't do one thing, it does everything because its a mini virtual machine.
I don't have the authority to say if this is the entire reason we don't code in Smalltalk-like languages, but I think its part of it. There are plenty of new languages trying to push programming languages in new, interactive directions (ex: Eve), but none of them have gained critical mass or mind share. There must be some intrinsic reasons that languages like this don't take off. Hope this provided some insight!
I'm not an expert in the question, but as far as I know the main reason of SmallTalk failure was licensing model - it was very expensive. I consider Ruby the closest reincarnation of SmallTalk OOP model (which is widely used). Ruby doesn't have "forced" IDE though.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think looking at Smalltalk will answer a lot of your questions. Smalltalk is exactly what you're describing: a language built for an IDE. It can't be used outside the IDE, as it doesn't store its data in plain text, but rather an image format. The IDE provides all sort of nice features and analysis to the user, and ideas from Smalltalk have influenced many other languages and IDEs since its creation in the 1970s. So why aren't we all using Smalltalk? I think the key lies in interoperability. Smalltalk is a world of its own. It doesn't interoperate well with tools that exist outside of the Smalltalk world. For example, you can't really benefit from git when you can't understand how to merge code in a binary image format. When I need to accomplish a specific task (say, some sort of build task), I need to know how to accomplish everything I need in the Smalltalk world, using its tools. Smalltalk goes against the unix philosophy: it doesn't do one thing, it does everything because its a mini virtual machine.
I don't have the authority to say if this is the entire reason we don't code in Smalltalk-like languages, but I think its part of it. There are plenty of new languages trying to push programming languages in new, interactive directions (ex: Eve), but none of them have gained critical mass or mind share. There must be some intrinsic reasons that languages like this don't take off. Hope this provided some insight!
I've honestly never used Smalltalk, guess I will have to take a look at it.
I haven't used it much either, but what I've seen has been interesting. Pharo is a pretty modern implementation pharo.org/.
I'm not an expert in the question, but as far as I know the main reason of SmallTalk failure was licensing model - it was very expensive. I consider Ruby the closest reincarnation of SmallTalk OOP model (which is widely used). Ruby doesn't have "forced" IDE though.