Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!amdahl.com!amd!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!slcgate!servio!servio!marcs
From: marcs@slc.com (Marc San Soucie)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk vs. Forte?
Message-ID: <marcs.806121124@servio>
Sender: news@slc.com (USENET News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: servio
Organization: GemStone Systems, Inc., Beaverton OR, USA
References: <3tviee$336@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3u027s$u7@nerainter.nera.no>
Date: 19 Jul 95 02:32:04 GMT
Lines: 14

trl@nocrc.abb.no (Tom Runar lauritzen) writes:

> My company evaluated a number of products, amongst them Forte and 
> VisualWorks. ...
> Having said that Forte seemed a very capable tool, the main thing it does 
> which most Smalltalk environments don't is application partitioning.

Note that most Smalltalk applications can make use of GemStone to develop 
Smalltalk application partitioning.

    Marc San Soucie
    GemStone Systems, Inc.
    Beaverton, Oregon
    marcs@slc.com
