Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.ti.com!ticipa!clw
From: clw@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com (Chris Winemiller)
Subject: Re: Digitalk's VST Win 32
Message-ID: <1995Mar23.062147.936@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com>
Organization: None
References: <3knavi$61d@cesl.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 06:21:47 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <3knavi$61d@cesl.rutgers.edu> Richard L. Peskin <peskin@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
>As a result of client needs, I found myself having to use Digitalk's STV
>Win 32.

<snip>
>IMHO STV Win 32 is a poor development environment...
>There is no
>heirarchical listing of classes; they put this in a hard copy document.

STV has always had a Class Heirarchy Browser that shows the heirarchical
presentation of classes.  Did you have something else in mind when your wrote
the preceding?


>There is no concept of category or package, so file out and in of groups
>of classes is difficult.

True enough. Although I also find the PP concept of "category" to be
inadequate. At work we use Envy, which IMO is the best way to do full-blown
commercial development. But, as you wrote farther down (elided by me), Envy is
too expensive for your particular situation.

Chris
==============================================================
Chris Winemiller               Internet: clw@works.ti.com
Disclaimer: I do not speak for TI.
==============================================================
