Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-6.sprintlink.net!nntp04.primenet.com!news.shkoo.com!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!n3ott.istar!imci2!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!world!carlg
From: carlg@world.std.com (Carl E Gundel)
Subject: Re: Is Smalltalk inherently slow?
Message-ID: <Dvpw8v.4nC@world.std.com>
Organization: The World, Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <3200CB93.31FF@eurocontrol.fr>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:02:55 GMT
Lines: 27

Richard Irvine (Richard.Irvine@eurocontrol.fr) wrote:
: On the ISE web pages one can find a comparison of OO languages, see
: http://www.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/oo_comparison/index.html

: One of the comments in this comparison is:

:   'Choose the right tool for the job. Smalltalk is
:    useful for prototypes, which ultimately have to
:    be thrown away because of serious
: performance problems. But it is ridiculous to
:    waste precious engineering time and cost on
:    throw-aways.'

: The perception that Smalltalk programs necessarily suffer
: from performance problems is fairly widespread.

My experience is that surprising performance gains can be had when 
developing in Smalltalk if a performance profiler is used (Profile/V for 
example).  In the effort to build a good object oriented framework it can 
be easy to design a slow app.

Carl
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Carl Gundel  carlg@world.std.com  Shoptalk Systems  508-872-5315
 author of Liberty BASIC, a 1996 PC Magazine Awards Finalist!
 http://world.std.com/~carlg/basic.html
