Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!en.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!165.254.2.53!nonexistent.com!not-for-mail
From: vlad@world2u.com (Vlastimil Adamovsky)
Subject: Re: Response to PC Week article on Java
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
X-Nntp-Posting-User: (Unauthenticated)
Message-ID: <E68oJq.G21@nonexistent.com>
References: <01bc2330$066f96b0$ed22109b@russ-mc-laptop> <E66sJL.A01@nonexistent.com> <01bc23c1$d1ef1c20$50c49284@fatman.alien.bt.co.uk>
X-Trace: 857009220/20796
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: i123.140.world2u.com
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:09:48 GMT
Lines: 103

"Matthew Sims" <msims@info.bt.co.uk> wrote:



>Vlastimil Adamovsky <vlad@world2u.com> wrote in article
><E66sJL.A01@nonexistent.com>...
>> "Russ McClelland" <russmc@netbox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Here was my response to Peter Coffee....
>> >Because of the Smalltalk architecture, testing
>> >and developing is much more rapid in ST than Java or C++.  
>> 
>> VB5

>VB5 is OO? I don't think so.

Who cares? In some extent it is.

>> 
>> > Only ST breaks the type/compile/link/test cycle.  
>> 
>> Is it really so big advantage?
>> 
>> >I can creat classes and
>> >test them with having access to the entire project.  I no longer have to
>> >wait for "Harry" to get back from lunch to test my code.
>> 
>> ActiveX

>Get real!  Adding classes and methods to Smalltalk has got to be easier
>than creating new ActiveX applets.


Having ActiveX, I don't need to create them I get them or buy them. Besides, 
having a knowledge how-to, it is really easy to create it.

And also, why should I need to "add" classes. I simply "use" them.

>> Do you really want to change "mission critical" systems while running? 

>No. I think Russ was getting carried away.  But it is so much easier
>changing code without restarting the application.  You open a window you
>have developed, press a button and find a bug in your code.  Fix the bug
>and press the button again.  There is no need to open the window again. 
>This, and the fact that you only need to compile one method at a time (when
>making changes), must be the reason that Smalltalk applications are
>developed seven times faster than C++. 

Ever heard a tale "Three small pigs? " 
(I don't remember the exact name for it)


>> 
>> >Whats more important is that
>> >systems that have rapidly changing rules (like tax and accounting
>systems)
>> 
>> They usually change only once a year.
>> 
>> >can be modified without shipping a new product to the customer.  
>> 
>> ActiveX, OCX, Plug-ins, DLL etc... do the same job

>These are fine if you don't want the advantages of a OO and you want to
>spend a long time developing each of these components.


Well understood  OO is cooperation of "interfaces" .  Implementation is of
second importance. Thus ActiveX, OCX, SOM, DSOM, DLL may or not be understood 
as OO components. 



>Many C++ programmers are afraid of Smalltalk because they have to stop
>playing at OO and do it for real.  They also seem to think that speed of
>execution is more important than development time:  they are obviously
>insecure about losing their C roots and will use any argument to keep hold
>of them.

I have used Smalltalk during more than 10 years. But I am a realist.
 
>Java is great for small applets (if you don't mind the GUI being a bit
>flaky).  But converting ints to Integers and back again and not being able
>to add methods to existing classes drives me crazy.

Each language has its own oddities.

>C++ is great if you don't want concentrate on an application's design but
>want to spend your time remembering to free up memory and fixing mistakes
>that are due to an outdated syntax.

I am using "smart pointers". They do know when to free themselves.

> 


>Matt Sims


 Vlastimil Adamovsky
 ** C++ and Smalltalk consultant **


