Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!rutgers!sgigate.sgi.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!world!news
From: moresys@world.std.com (More Systems Employee)
Subject: Re: Java vs. Smalltalk vs. C++ vs. OO COBOL
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Dtq3Ht.BGo@world.std.com>
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Nntp-Posting-Host: world.std.com
Organization: MORE Systems, inc.
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7
References: <31CC4ABE.6DDE@individual.com> <4qrahn$49ns@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4qrjrl$e7s@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <31D1AD68.10D8@concentric.net> <31D210E1.7C4E@terracom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:32:16 GMT
Lines: 33
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.smalltalk:40028 comp.lang.c++:197461 comp.lang.java:64736 comp.object:51097

In article <31D210E1.7C4E@terracom.net>, daves@terracom.net says...
>
>Platform independence has been a programmer issue primarily, not a user issue. It has 
>little commercial value on the client side. This is what your customer complaints 
>really amount to--"I don't care if it works on some other machine, on MY machine I 
>want it to do (platform dependent fill in the blank)". Most people don't have five 
>brands of computers or five operating systems; they have one. They don't give two 
farts 
>if their app might also run on another machine. 

Each individual user may not understand or care about platform-independance, but
it would be foolish to think that their lack of interest is the same as a lack
of importance. The users of brand X, Y, and Z computers will all get the software
faster, and thus be happier, if the developer can write code for all three at
once. Each user only cares about himself, but in the end it will be the
platform independance that makes them all happier, whether they know or care 
why they got the code so fast.

>Historically only developers have a 
>real interest in cross platform independence. So, Smalltalk portability as it turns 
out 
>is totally different in character from Java portability, which is CRITICAL to its 
whole 
>functionality. It is NOT critical to smalltalk as a language in any way. This is the 
>difference. The web protocols require small, portable modules and will continue to do 
>so until there is radical hardware change in world infrastructure. 

Smalltalk is at least as portable as Java, and it is important to both languages.
Java does seem to have a head-start on loading classes over the network, but
I doubt it would be impossible to add it to Smalltalk. The real killer for
Smalltalk has been the exorbant prices, but that shows signs of changing.
Let's hope it's not too little, too late.

