Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!simtel!news3.noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!kthompso
From: kthompso@netcom.com (Kevin Thompson)
Subject: Re: smalltalk product comparison
Message-ID: <kthompsoDGCKqn.M6M@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <45jhhf$31p@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 18:01:35 GMT
Lines: 28
Sender: kthompso@netcom18.netcom.com

In article <45jhhf$31p@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Jawad Akhtar  <smalltkr@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>For those of you who might be interested:
>
>There is a review of the 4 major smalltalk products in the October 9,
>1995 issue of InfoWorld.
>
>A summary of the article is posted on                         
>http://192.216.48.63/testctr.html  
>
>If you want to read the details, you will have to find the paper
>version of the article ( which I am currently attempting to do ).  
>
>    In brief, the final scores were: 
>
>    Visual Smalltalk Enterprise 3.0 ( digitalk-pp)   6.8
>    VisualAge Team for Smalltalk 2.0( IBM )          6.7
>    VisualWorks 2.0 (parcPlace)                      6.2
>    ObjectStudio 4.1 (Vmark)                         6.1

And such an in-depth review it is.  Has anyone *ever* seen a comparison of
language products that did not evaluate execution speed?  It's almost like
they said "sure, Smalltalk is slow, so it must be so slow that we shouldn't
bother".

Kevin Thompson
-- 
kthompso@netcom.com        
