Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!dhoag
From: dhoag@netcom.com (David Hoag)
Subject: Re: Whither Smalltalk?
Message-ID: <dhoagCwE2zn.Gqy@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1994Sep8.181505.26772@denver.alc.com> <35b38h$2em@mblisd.macqbl.com.au>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 18:21:22 GMT
Lines: 82

: The facts are these:  PowerBuilder is a nice tool for quickly building 
: applications that don't require too much business logic IMHO, but when you
: need a complicated business model you might run into trouble.  It's that
: last 10% that worries everybody, which is why VisualWorks/VisualAge/Enfin/
: Digitalk are making such inroads into larger corporations.

  Recent IDG reports have case studies showing major project failures 
using the GUI -> Database link.  I think the original posters concern was 
that development efforts at PP have been on building support for an 
architecture that has been proven to be unsound.

: >> Smalltalk is not really being used to re-architecture but
: >> simply to supply a set of GUI and database connection facilities.
: >> Unfortunately the Smalltalk vendors are feeding this market. IBM
: >> "VisualAge" appears to be catering to this, as does VisualWorks 2.0.

: So what?

  Customers using the direct GUI to database connection facilities have 
already experience failure using this architecture.  They turn to the OO 
market place using this poor architecture and fail once again.  Smalltalk 
as a whole gets a bad rap, when it was really the customers development 
approach.


[deleted]

: >Anyway, back down to earth.  Dick continued:
: >> Where does this leave Smalltalk as an OOPL? Will the vendors begin to
: >> abandon the language and system features we need for effective
: >> "behavioral-oriented" programming. Will Smalltalk as a rapid prototyping
: >> environment give way to being just another GUI builder?
: >[...] 
: >> I fear for the future of Smalltalk if we don't return to using it for its
: >> real strength, behavioral simulation. If all users want is  a GUI builder
: >> and database connection, Smalltalk is just plain overkill.

: We don't just want a GUI builder.  That's WHY we're using SmallTalk.

Exactly! That is why I would never directly link a GUI form to a 
database. I see GUI as simply views into my business model. By connecting 
to a database we would be excluding business requirments from our model, 
therefore defeating some of the reasons for using Smalltalk.  What I need 
are tools that allow us to link our business model to an RDBMS, not UIs.

: >So maybe some vendor should see this as an opportunity.  What are we up to
: >now, about six commercial implementations of Smalltalk?  Let's see.  There's
: >-80, /V, Agents, Enfin, ST/X, VisAge, have I missed any?  Gawd.  It's
: >getting almost as bad as the C++ compiler vendor market.  Anyway, it's
: >probably about time for some market positioning.  Certainly not all of
: >these guys can survive selling GUI builders and database connections.  So
: >who's it gonna be? Who's gonna fall off that corporate gravy train and
: >remain true to the roots of the technology?

: Whoever does will lose.  It happens all the time.  The simple fact of the matter
: is that all the mentioned companies need money to continue development of
: their product.  They don't develop these products out of any sense of
: nobility or duty to the original proponents of the principles of SmallTalk,
: they do it to make money.  Like, profits.  You know, industry and capitalism
: and all those good All American things.

I agree that companies need to make the profits to survive.  Look at the 
PB market place, there is definitely money to be made there. Customers 
will, however, fail with this approach when building enterprise wide 
solutions. Smalltalk vendors can make plenty of money providing RDBMS 
connectivity without compromising architectual integrity.

  I know that Enfin has a tool for building business models and have 
announced a tool that will allow me to link the business model to a 
RDBMS. This way I can simulate my business without worrying about 
persistance, nor have a care about how I will present the data.

: David Rubie, Development Support Analyst
: drubie@macqbl.com.au
: ===============================================
: Opinions contained within this article in no way represent 
: the Macquarie Bank Ltd or it's subsidiaries.  They are MINE MINE MINE!


- Dave Hoag


