> Smalltalk is so succinct and has simple syntax

There is an interesting aspect in there - the simpler and easier to do complicated stuff, the higher the odds of NIH syndrome: while nobody would try to reinvent the wheel in Java or C#, I've been tempted to reinvent partial wheels for my very own needs that squeak and wobble in very specific ways in such languages, just because it's so easy.

It's something in the same line as seeing traditional design patterns just vanish when the language syntax has features that make their implementation trivial. You may need a library for, say, observers in C++, but they are so easy to implement in Python or Smalltalk that you'd feel no need to use something pre-built for that.

Ruby's object model is based on Smalltalk's so I wouldn't expect much of a difference. And Elixir, courtesy of Erlang, has a "model the world through communicating processes" model which strongly mirrors the Smalltalk model. So developing a program in each of these languages can be, though doesn't have to be, very similar in style. With a focus on communicating entities (be they processes or objects) allowing them to manage their own state over time in response to messages from other entities.