Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!blackbush.xlink.net!scsing.switch.ch!swidir.switch.ch!in2p3.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!jussieu.fr!lcr.thomson-csf.fr!news.thomson-lcr.fr!demailly
From: demailly@thomson-lcr.fr (Gilles Demailly)
Subject: Re: Why is VisualWorks SO complicated?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: morphee
Message-ID: <DKvEzx.IsI@news.thomson-lcr.fr>
Sender: news@news.thomson-lcr.fr
Organization: Thomson-CSF, Laboratoire Central de Recherches, Orsay, France
References: <4ccumk$ldv@news2.ios.com> <4crce7$sl2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:26:21 GMT
Lines: 20


In article <4crce7$sl2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, staypufed@aol.com (Staypufed) writes:
|> ParcPlace is making Smalltalk better by doing exactly what you mentioned. 
|> Making there framework do native calls.  As for it being nonsense.  It
|> wasn't when they first set up this framework.  DOS was still king (no
|> windowing system of its own), UNIX still didn't have one windowing system
|> and the mac had its' own.  So they needed to create there own.  Not every
|> machine had a native windowing system.  Remember that the ParcPlace
|> Smalltalk tool is over 20 years old also.  It had a windowing system in
|> 1972.
|> Sam Griffith Jr.
|> Staypufed@aol.com

Yes I do remember this, I also remember than Smalltalk-80 with its
own windowing system was faster than new versions running under X !

Using standards for the windowing systems does not have only avantages,
it's more complicated and slower ...

--Gilles - demailly@thomson-lcr.fr
