Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!daily-planet.execpc.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!ins.net!heeg.de!hasko
From: hasko@heeg.de (Hasko Heinecke)
Subject: Re: Crosscompiler Smalltalk --> C++?
Message-ID: <DFtptB.G3z@heeg.de>
Sender: uucp@heeg.de
Organization: Georg Heeg Objektorientierte Systeme, Dortmund, FRG
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <44gf3j$oqq@sunti1.sdm.de>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 13:36:46 GMT
Lines: 26

Peter Haug (Peter.Haug@sdm.de) wrote:
: we are developing a client/server-system using smalltalk (VW) on the clients
: and C++ with ObjectStore on the server; on the server we only have simple 
: functions, mainly the access to the database; 

: it would be nice, if we could write the code for the server in Smalltalk too 
: and then generate automatically C++-code from it; 

: is there any product doing this? does anyone have experience with such a situation?

I think, cross-compiling Smalltalk to C++ is a hard thing to do. I guess, you'd
need a run-time library about the size of a Smalltalk image. What makes you
think, automatically cross-compiled Smalltalk code is faster than the orginial?
Why would you want to lose portability? Why do you want to introduce all the
problems that arise when you've to maintain different versions of the same
code -- in different languages?

I'm just curious: You decided to use Smalltalk for the client, why don't you
take the obvious next step and use it for the server, too?

Hasko
--
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Hasko Heinecke, Georg Heeg - Object-Oriented Systems |
| hasko@heeg.de or http://www.heeg.de/~hasko           |
+------------------------------------------------------+
