Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!info.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!metro!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!tmx!news.tmx.com.au!news
From: Philip Haynes <p.haynes@oose.com.au>
Subject: Re: Are there C++ vs. ST figures?
Message-ID: <3158778D.3F38@oose.com.au>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 203.5.19.186
Sender: news@online.tmx.com.au (System Administrator)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (WinNT; I)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Object Oriented Pty Ltd
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:02:37 GMT
References: <expertek.315.005A3A52@aone.com> <3144AEC6.678B@oose.com.au> <bastion1-1603960756320001@10.0.2.15> <Jan-1603961412150001@206.116.214.1> <milodDospBp.Erz@netcom.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 54

John DiCamillo wrote:
> 
> Jan@Bytesmiths.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
> >In article <bastion1-1603960756320001@10.0.2.15>, bastion1@netcom.com
> >(Gregory & Jennifer Weston) wrote:
> >> In article <3144AEC6.678B@oose.com.au>, Philip Haynes
> >> <p.haynes@oose.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I did a study a couple of years back where I wrote a system in C++ &
> >> >then rewrote it in Smalltalk. ...
> 
> >> If you wrote in C++ and then rewrote in Smalltalk, you had increased your
> >> familiarity with the problem, giving Smalltalk a distinct edge...
> 
> >Not according to Brooks. "The Second System Syndrom" from "The Mythical
> >Man Month" states that developers get cocky after their first project of a
> >certain type, and throw too many bells and whistles at the second one for
> >it to be successful. This is from the sage who noted that "adding resource
> >to a late project makes it later."
> 
> The "Second System Effect" does not apply to a simple re-write of the
> same program in another language.  Brooks' observation concerns
> the second *version* of a system -- the problem starts in analysis
> and continues through design and implementation. 
I have missed a bit of this thread, but to clarify, when I rewrote
the C++ code in Smalltalk, completely different designs were 
used. The C++ version used native OS/2 controls (specifically 
sliders), whereas in key areas in Smalltalk, custom controls 
were created using animation techniques, to provide slicker
interface. (i.e. by rights the Smalltalk version should have taken
longer - but this was ignored)

In both cases the problem started with a prototype & a stated
set of requirements. It was not possible thus to attribute
the productivity differences due it being the second time
the system was created. The main significant difference 
between the two developments was the language & the 
environment which supports it. This finding was reinforced by 
design / coding productivity during the project remaining 
relatively constant. 


Regards
Phil.

---------------------------------------------------------
        Philip Haynes           | 
        p.haynes@oose.com.au    | "You can't control what you 
 ,-_|\  Object Oriented Pty Ltd |  can't measure. If you think 
/     \ P.O. Box 528,           |  the cost of measurement is  
\_,-._/ North Sydney            |  high, consider the cost of   
     v  NSW, Australia, 2059    |  being out of control."
        +61-2-9957-1092 (ph)    | 	- Tom Demarco
        +61-2-9956 5089 (fax)   |
