Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!simtel!torn!nott!cunews!dbuck
From: dbuck@superior.carleton.ca (Dave Buck)
Subject: Re: URGENT: Did I make a mistake ... C++ or SmallTalk?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: superior.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DII3Hy.C5G@cunews.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
References: <48td17$13r@brtph500.bnr.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 14:41:58 GMT
Lines: 52
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.smalltalk:30985 comp.lang.c++:161508

In article <48td17$13r@brtph500.bnr.ca>,
Gilbert Banks  <gilbertb@bnr.ca> wrote:
>Hi C++ers and SmallTalkers,
>
>I purchased Borland C++ 4.5 during the summer.  C++ is interesting to program
>in, especially when you program GUIs.  But, currently I have had about 9-10
>months experience with ENVY/SmallTalk by ParcPlace, and it is easy, quick, fun,
>to work for Object-Oriented (OO) projects.
>
>Someone tell me did I make a mistake any purchasing C++ over SmallTalk for
>small OO projects?  If so, what SmallTalk package should I purchase for 486/66
>Mhz (8Meg) computer. Some of the projects I'm working on are animated
>educational packages for elementary students at my tutorial program.
>
>P.S. Reply to the newsgroup, because my internet account is corrupted.

I use both C++ and Smalltalk.  When I have the opportunity, I much
prefer Smalltalk because I find it much simpler, more comprehensible,
and dramatically faster to develop in.  C++ development is much more
complex, much more difficult, and much slower than Smalltalk.

On the flip side, if you want to develop a small application that must
run in a small memory system, you have a better chance of doing it in
C++ than in Smalltalk.  Most Smalltalk's these days require a minimum
of 8 Megs of RAM and much prefer 12 or 16 if you have it.  For a small
application, Smalltalk can be used and stripped down to run in 8 Megs,
but it does have to be small.  The latest version of Smalltalk/V
(Visual Smalltalk) may be better for this since they have SLL's, but I
haven't had the opportunity to use this dialect recently.

C++ is also better when you need to directly access platform-specific
features.  If you need to record AVI's frame by frame, edit sound
samples, control CD-Rom playback, directly access printer drivers, etc.,
Smalltalk would have to call C or C++ user functions and the user
functions would have to do the work.  Having said that, I still
haven't been able to get Borland C++ 4.51 to access the AVI routines
because the include files are a complete incoherent mess of duplicate
and inconsistant definitions, and conditional compilation.  But,
that's my problem not yours :-).


David Buck
dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca

_________________________________
| David K. Buck                 |
| dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca         |
| The Object People             |
|_______________________________|



