> The patch however sneakily removes the chance ...

If they haven't tested on other processors, should they leave code in because it has a "chance" to work on something else? I think both sides of this question could be legitimately argued so I wouldn't jump to calling it "evil".

What do you mean `"chance" to work`? If the CPU claims to support an instruction, it's perfectly fine to treat it as supporting the instruction.

Gemstone provides a database. There are very large Smalltalk based applications that run using Gemstone as the backing database[1] . These applications are, for the most part, very large in-house applications that don't have much external visibility.

[1] http://seaside.gemtalksystems.com/docs/OOCL_SuccessStory.pdf

The first one that comes to mind is the scratch package[1]. The entire scratch language, as far as I know, runs on top of squeak

[1] https://packages.ubuntu.com/source/trusty/scratch

Scratch was rewritten in JavaScript a few years back, AFAIK.

It was rewritten in Flash and now is being rewritten in Javascript. An independent project created an extended Scratch clone in Javascript called Snap!.