Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!world!kentq
From: kentq@world.std.com (Kent J Quirk)
Subject: Re: Looking for Development Platform Recommendations
Message-ID: <CyD3L6.LCy@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <389hja$79c@cleese.nas.com> <38hi1d$9bg@crl7.crl.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 02:43:53 GMT
Lines: 59

Robert H. Cram (robtcram@crl.com) wrote:
: C++ - Object oriented (sort of), fast applications, tons of third-party
: libraries (including good OO apps frameworks), inexpensive, and virtually
: all vendors of compilers and libraries support the ANSI C++ standard. 
: It's an OK development environment, and a good delivery tool. 

But if you like an interactive, productive environment, it's a pain.  The 
edit-compile-link-debug cycle is good for my juggling.


: Basic - Easy to use and learn.  Not very object oriented.  Microsoft will
: keep it forever; it must be the most popular MS-Windows application
: development tool around, these days.  Easy to deliver applications also. 
: So-so development, good delivery tool.  Inexpensive and widely supported
: by libs. But Yuk!, it's BASIC, and real programmers.... 

What really bugs me about this is that VB is a 1990 development 
environment with a 1978 language.  Lotus developed LotusScript, which is 
a wonderful truly object-oriented version of BASIC.  But the surrounding 
environment (Lotus Notes ViP, which I worked on) has some cool ideas, 
but it's not extensible -- you can't add to the list of firstclass 
objects (no VBX support, nor can you build objects to attach to the toolbox).

Why won't Microsoft give us a real version of BASIC?  VB is fine for 
prototyping, but as soon as things get big VB gets UGLY.


: Smalltalk - Fantastic development tool - the best. Truly OO, with all the 
: benefits of having the development environment and the language so 
: closely tied together.  But...Lots of training involved - FOXPRO to ST 
: is a pretty big step to take.  In MS-Windows, it's an horrific resource 
: hog (at least the Digitalk version is); apps are unacceptably slow 
: on 8-Meg machines.  And, it's expensive - the basic environments cost 
: tons, some require royalties for delivering applications, and the 
: third-party support just isn't there (or it's way too expensive).

What he said.  Boy, is it fun.  But plan on spending a while learning it, 
but I wouldn't consider delivering a shrink-wrapped package with it given 
its resource load today.


: FoxPro - Easy, standard development environment, inexpensive, etc.  But, 
: FoxPro apps are limited in their functionality - not every 
: application fits the relational model or the particular proclivities of 
: the relational development tools - i.e. scrolling through tables, or 
: using a form to scroll through tables.  And forcing FoxPro, Powerbuilder, 
: etc., to do other sorts of things results in clunky, big, slow, peculiar 
: applications.

Nice, though, if your app fits their model of the world.

: At least on MS-Windows, C++ is the best compromise.  It's OO (sort of), 
: it's widely supported, there is no technical restriction placed on your 
: application, and it's inexpensive.

Yeah.  But plan on taking a while to finish development (compared to the 
others).  And look into Borland Delphi.  If you're not going 
cross-platform, that really looks interesting right now.

