Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsfeed.cit.cornell.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: C++ vs Smalltalk?
Message-ID: <DHBDwJ.GuL@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
References: <463fs7$neb@inforamp.net> <46v1ag$ruq@k9.San-Jose.ate.slb.com> <472jvs$knp@aadt.sdt.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 13:09:55 GMT
Lines: 34
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:157366 comp.lang.smalltalk:30058

In article <472jvs$knp@aadt.sdt.com> leb@sdt.com writes:

> The simple syntax part I can't argue about.  Arguably, C++
> makes PL/1 look like baby talk.

Just about any language you don't know looks like baby talk.

> I think it's important to separate the language from it's 
> environment.  The Smalltalk development support environment has
> been its strength. Now, "other languages" (read: others besides
> C++) are cottoning to the "integrated development environment"
> pioneered first by Smalltalk, then by Borland for PC platforms.

Pioneered by Smalltalk?  I used an integrated development
environment for APL in 1968.  Certainly by the time Smalltalk
appeared on the general scene (I don't know when it was working
inside PARC before then) similar development environments had
been common in the Lisp world for some time.

> At this point, it seems germain to discuss the languages solely
> in terms of their expressive power at the source-code level, and
> in terms of features & functionality.

Any nontrivial programming language is Turing complete.

I think the more important issue is how the language fits into
its environment, culture, and problem set.  This is more a matter
of what people are used to and willing to learn than the specific
merits or demerits of a language -- which are often culturally
related anyway.

-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com
