Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!amdahl.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!medicus!billf
From: billf@medicus.com (Bill Foote)
Subject: Re: SmallTalk vs C++ Challenge!
Message-ID: <1995Sep11.185431.11285@medicus.com>
Organization: Medicus Systems Corp.
References: <42ffqh$3ugu@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <42gb09$oa1@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <42jq7t$mg@aadt.sdt.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 18:54:31 GMT
Lines: 42
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.smalltalk:28202 comp.object:38171 comp.lang.c++:148473 comp.lang.c:154898

In article <42jq7t$mg@aadt.sdt.com> leb@sdt.com writes:
>
>"Rapid Application Developers" whose ultimate goal is
>a sustainable solution seem to prefer the the "compiled
>is best" solutions, Visual Basic a notable exception.
>Function over Form. Accomplishment is more important
>than Elegance.  The end result is a solution, "finished,"
>perhaps for better or for worse.
>

I can't disagree with that, because you said " ... developers ... seem
to prefer the 'compiled is best' ... ", and not "the compiled solution
*is* best".  (I assume that by "compiled" you're implying "statically
typed"...  After all, most Smalltalks *are* compiled!)

There is in what you said, however, an implicit message that Smalltalk 
may be less suitable for sustainable, well-engineered solutions than
"the compiled alternative".

I largely disagree.  There certainly is a lot of hype in 
the Smalltalk world, but there are certain statically-typed 
languages that have had an equal or greater amount of misleading hype :-)

I think that if you look a little more deeply into the "Smalltalk community"
(whatever that is :-), you might find a much higher degree of concern for
SE than it would seem you'd expect.  For example, might I suggest you
take a look at Rebecca Wirfs-Brock's book, "Designing Object-Oriented
Software"?  A quite valuable contribution, IMHO, that in my work has
nicely complemented the more structure-oriented Booch/Rumbaugh methods.

On the language issue, I personally do tend to agree that detecting
errors early is better than detecting them late, and that there is value
in static type checking.  But there's a cost associated with this.
Whether the cost exceeds the benefit is highly dependant on the
project, the team, and the other tradeoffs you get with your language
of choice.  Static vs. dynamic typing is just one of many criteria
by which to judge a language/environment.
--
Bill Foote                | Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus ecrit.
billf@medicus.com         | [Add little to little and there will be a big pile]
Medicus Systems           |    -- Ovid, via Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.
Alameda, CA USA           |	 ***  http://www.jovial.com/~billf/  ***
