Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!canopus.hbs.edu!news-in.tiac.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!news2.new-york.net!not-for-mail
From: vlad@world2u.com (Vlastimil Adamovsky)
Subject: Re: Another Way Of Looking At Smalltalk (2)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
X-Nntp-Posting-User: (Unauthenticated)
Message-ID: <E065sA.IFz@news2.new-york.net>
References: <3277ADB8.2633@inxpress.net> <19961031004700.TAA22970@ladder01.news.aol.com>
X-Trace: 846813897/23867
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: i123.253.world2u.com
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 02:05:56 GMT
Lines: 17

dogmat@aol.com wrote:


>The simplicity of the hardware solution is a phantom more than matched by
>the reality of history. Specialized chips remain niches and eventually
>fail. Others have tried. James does not need to offer an alternative
>because he already has one working now. If PPD tried to develop a chip, I
>would find another ST vendor, because I would like my vendor to remain in
>business.

Why is it so bad idea to have a specialized chip for Smalltalk? There will be a
chip for Java, so why not for Smalltalk?

 Vlastimil Adamovsky
 ** C++ and Smalltalk consultant **
 * http://www.stepweb.com *

