Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!lovejoya
From: lovejoya@netcom.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Subject: Re: innocuous Smalltalk questions
Message-ID: <lovejoyaD48nr1.D8r@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <978@lafcol.lafayette.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 08:33:01 GMT
Lines: 61
Sender: lovejoya@netcom8.netcom.com

Erik V. Smith (smithe@linux.kirbynet.lafayette.edu) wrote:

>     I have some questions for anyone who would care to answer them.
>These are so basic they might even be FAQ material. I am a CS major and
>I am Intimately familiar with C++ and software engineering but...
> 
>     What is it that motivates people to use Smalltalk instead of C++?
>I see all of these job offerings for smalltalk programmers, yet there is
>no "Turbo Smalltalk" or "Microsoft (Visual or whatever) Smalltalk". 

>     Is there some connection between Smalltalk and relational data bases?

Not particularly.  But Smalltalk can be interfaced with all the popular 
relational databases.
 
>     Who does produce a Smalltalk compilier, and does anyone have an IDE 
>	for it yet?  

Smalltalk development systems are marketed commercially by ParcPlace, Digitalk,
IBM, QKS and Easel.  There are also non-commercial development environments
such as GNU Smalltalk and Smalltalk-X (the latter is the only "true" compiler,
the others all use intermediate code and virtual machines--Smalltalk-X is only
available for UNIX--including Linux).

>     Is there some particular industry that has been hooked on Smalltalk?
>	(like the financial people were hooked on NeXT)

It would be better to say that Smalltalk's niche is in general those projects
where development time and application flexibility are far greater priorities
than execution speed and/or memory footprint.  This is especially true for
corporate development of internal projects where the small number of users
cannot amortize the costs of traditional development, and/or where the
strategic advantages of Smalltalk's relatively quick development time 
outweigh other considerations. 

Strong interest in Smalltalk has been shown by financial/investment companies,
intelligence agencies, CASE tool manufactureres, oil companies, airlines and
telecommuncations companies (other than ATT--wonder why?).  Applications
that seem to be well-served by Smalltlk include decision support systems,
data entry-retrieval, factory automation, trader workstations, system management
and control consoles and of course simulations.

>     Knowing C++ (and nine others) as well as I do, should I bother to 
>	learn Smalltalk?

Smalltalk is to OOP what Pascal was to "Structured Programming."  Smalltalk
was the first "pure" object-oriented programming language.  Being an OOP
programmer without knowing Smalltalk is like being a Christian preacher
without knowing the Scriptures or like being an English Lit. professor
without ever having read Shakespear.  

>			thanks,

>				smithe@139.147.3.3


-- 
--
Alan Lovejoy | INTERNET: lovejoya@netcom.com | Smalltalk-80 Consultant
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Old age should burn and rave 
at the closing of the day.  Rage, rage at the dying of the light!"
