objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Peter Goodall) (11/20/90)
johnson@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >...... On the other >hand, my guess is that Digitalk is actually ahead on the number of >units sold, because their prices are a lot lower and they run on less >expensive machines. Their quality has been steadily improving over >the years and they are now very popular with OS/2 developers. In >fact, they recently signed an agreement with IBM so that now IBM is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >promoting Smalltalk-V/PM for OS/2. Does anynone have more details on this agreement bewtween Digitalk and IBM? Here in Australia the info and rumors from IBM seem a little confused to say the least. Microsoft think that IBM is using Smalltalk, but not /VPM. My contact with IBM indicates that they are definitely using Smalltalk/VPM but prefer the public to think that they are using C to do everything. Often they develop their GUIs in /VPM and then convert to C. Though I do believe that some new UIs from IBM are at least partially implemented in /VPM. They also say that it is possible that the use a Smalltalk to C translator. I don't believe in Smalltalk to C translators, what they probably have is methods on some classes that will spit out C code which will describe a program simulating the Smalltalk interface they have developed. Having recently purchased Acumen's marvelous Widget toolkit for Smalltalk/V286 and examining their code, I can see a number of strategies for achieving this. (Widgets generates Smalltalk not C). Also rumour has it that Digitalk was getting a bit hot under the collar, because IBM was using /VPM to develop their new GUIs and applications without giving any credit whatsoever to Digitalk. Has this changed? Thanks, Peter Goodall objtch@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
ulnie@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Ulf Niesar) (11/21/90)
What I know about the connection between IBM and Smalltalk is that IBM licensed Smalltalk at least for PM (I am not sure about Windows). Usually this means that they plan to market at least parts of the product or want to extend it. As far as I was told (not much anyway)it seems likely that IBM is planning to come up with a software development tool. I didn`t hear anything if that will affect SAA. If this would be the case (but I really don't know it), that would be quite a big deal since SAA products are supposed to run on all SAA platforms starting with OS/2 and ending on a mainframe. So I guess we will have to speculate what it will be. I know that IBM started to experiment with Smalltalk for their own software development but I don't know if they dropped it or not. Anyway, this announcement seems to be a good argument that they continued and that they are planning something ... ->(?) My own point of view is that there is a good tool for GUI programming needed. Maybe IBM gives Smalltalk a try. But the interesting point is if it becomes SAA. In my opinion that would really be great. Ulf
ulnie@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Ulf Niesar) (11/22/90)
Today I received a newsletter by Digitalk. In this newsletter they publish the IBM announcement concerning Smalltalk. I think that this may be of comno interest. However, here it is: ** start of press release ** White Plains, NY, October 15 ... IBM today announced a development and license agreement with Digitalk, Inc., developers of the Smalltalk/V line of object- oriented programming environments. IBM has licensed Digitalk`s Operating System/2 (OS/2) implementation of Smalltalk/V and future Digitalk offerings for prototyping and product development. In addition, IBM and Digitalk will enhance Digitalk's products to meet evolving customer requirements for application development that complies with Systems Application Architecture (SAA), IBM's strategic platform for common features and functions across different hardware platforms. "This agreement with Digitalk allows IBM to accelerate its use of object- oriented technology," said Earl Wheeler, IBM Senior Vice-President and General Manager, Programming Systems. "Smalltalk/V provides a solid foundation for developing Common User Access (CUA) - compliant applications in SAA cooperative processing environments. Our work with Digitalk is one step in IBM's commitment to using object-oriented programming in our products and platforms," Wheeler said. James A. Anderson, President of Digitalk said, "We are delighted that IBM is using Smalltalk/V in product development. Digitalk will be working closely with IBM on enhancements to Smalltalk/V, including a set of visual programming tools, increased AD/Cycle integration and SAA compliance. The resulting products will allow our customers to deliver applications more effectively than ever before." Smalltalk/V is an object-oriented programming language and development environment that Digitalk developed for IBM personal computers. Digitalk currently markets Smalltalk/V development environments worldwide for DOS, OS/2 and the Apple Macintosh, with a Microsoft Windows 3.0 version planned. ** end of reprint from a press release issued by IBM on October, 15 1990. ** ** taken from Scoop newsletter Vol.3 No.4, 1990 (by Digitalk) ** I think that this annoncement makes quite clear, that we will see Smalltalk/V in the full range of product development within SAA. We will see if it intendedto be a tool for rapid prototyping only (very interesting is Anderson's statement concerning integration of Smalltalk into AD/Cycle, IBM's strategic CASE system !), or maybe as a new SAA programming language (Andersom says that they willwork _together with IBM_ on visual programming tools). Is anybody out there who has some more informations ?? Ulf
objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Peter Goodall) (11/26/90)
Thanks for the followups folks, To continue.. An article was posted to comp.object by Ed Berard on the 22nd Nov which mentions a front-page articel in Computerworld - "IBM on Object-Oriented Path" by Rosemary Hamilton. Un fortunately we have a local edition in Australia which didn't run the same article. We did get on by the same author titled: "IBM to adapt AD/Cycle to OOP Environment" This could be the same article re-edited. From my information and this article it is apparent that IBM has been using Smalltalk/VPM extensively to develop Office Vision. There has been some talk of a Smalltalk to C translator - which I doubt really exists - it is more likely to be a bunch of methods on some classes in the user-interface which generate a C equivalent of Jthe recieving instance. In the article I have seen there is also mention that ParcPlace systems have a also signed a license agreement with IBM. Any furtherinfo? This could be very useful for uor Smalltalk careers. PS Sorry about the typos, its not easy using VI through a noisy line. ---------------------------- Peter Goodall Smalltalk Systems Consultant ObjecTech P/L 162 Burns Bay Rd, LANE COVE , NSW, AUSTRALIA objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
taylord@spock (Don Taylor) (11/26/90)
I received a Digitalk newsletter talking about this deal. My reaction, however, was quite negative. As far as I can recall, everytime a big company like IBM or AT&T has embraced a small company's product as their standard then it has been the kiss of death (or at least of long and lingering illness) for the company and the product. Don. -- Don Taylor (613)-592-2122 x 3007 mitel!taylord@uunet.uu.net Mitel Corp. ...!uunet!mitel!taylord 350 Legget Drive, Kanata Ontario, Canada, K2K 1X3
objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Peter Goodall) (11/27/90)
taylord@spock (Don Taylor) writes: >I received a Digitalk newsletter talking about this deal. My reaction, >however, was quite negative. As far as I can recall, everytime a big company >like IBM or AT&T has embraced a small company's product as their standard then >it has been the kiss of death (or at least of long and lingering illness) for >the company and the product. >Don. >-- >Don Taylor (613)-592-2122 x 3007 mitel!taylord@uunet.uu.net >Mitel Corp. ...!uunet!mitel!taylord >350 Legget Drive, Kanata >Ontario, Canada, K2K 1X3 Could this be why it takes Digitalk two months to answer my faxes. Also they could do with a connection to the net. Does anyone know of a public access Unix box near them (L.A.) so I can give them the details? ---------------------------- Peter Goodall Smalltalk Systems Consultant ObjecTech P/L 162 Burns Bay Rd, LANE COVE , NSW, AUSTRALIA objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) (11/27/90)
I too would like to see Smalltalk become more widely available and more readily accepted as a mainstream development tool, but find it hard to get excited about the IBM announcement. IBM has a long history of spending gobs of money on lots of different approaches/tools/software/etc, and then dropping most of them like a lead brick when they think something else will make them more money. On a more practical note, I think it is very possible that Digitalk will end up as the tail trying to wag the dog, and support for other platforms (like the Mac) will probably suffer greatly. I could easily see IBM telling Digitalk to let their Mac product die or else, the else being loss of the IBM/Digitalk contract. If Digitalk put their "clickable application" technology that they have for PM on the Mac, it would revolutionize Mac programming, but I have little expectation that this will happen. Support from them is awful; their phone support people seem only vaguely acquainted with the product, and can only answer basic, novice-type questions. Anything else you are better off directing to the net. -- | ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never | imagined, or were encouraged to avoid. T. Pynchon |Andy Cohill |703/231-7855 cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu VPI&SU
pallas@eng.sun.com (Joseph Pallas) (11/28/90)
In <5467@taylord> taylord@spock (Don Taylor) writes: >As far as I can recall, everytime a big company >like IBM or AT&T has embraced a small company's product as their standard then >it has been the kiss of death (or at least of long and lingering illness) for >the company and the product. Perhaps you've never heard of a small company called Microsoft? :-) joe
manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (11/28/90)
In article <pallas.659725362@red-dwarf> pallas@eng.sun.com (Joseph Pallas) writes: >>As far as I can recall, everytime a big company like >>IBM or AT&T has embraced a small company's product as their standard then >>it has been the kiss of death (or at least of long and lingering illness) for >>the company and the product. >Perhaps you've never heard of a small company called Microsoft? :-) I think that the original comment only applied to companies which were developing new technologies. :-) On the other hand, IBM owns a chunk of Intel... I for one am delighted about the agreement. Let's suppose that IBM throws a few million at Digitalk, then gives up in frustration and buys Bill Gates' wonderful new Basic product, whatever it is. So Digitalk has had a substantial cash infusion, has been able to develop some good products, and has received a lot of visibility. Maybe that would skew their efforts away from the Mac (I can't comment on how good the Digitalk Mac support is), but Apple is obviously able to make the same technology investments as IBM. In any case, look at NeXT and Metaphor, among others, if you want to see how seriously IBM is taking object-oriented technologies. They're putting a lot of money into companies which have staked their future on OO technologies. Maybe we ought to be a bit less cynical? -- \ Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and \ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist." /\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge / \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Peter Goodall) (11/29/90)
I have been attending the Pacific Tools'90 conference. A Smalltalk guru told me that IBM was giving a big demo of their AD/Cycle, and the system broke. They had to bring it up again, while they were booting it it became obvious that it was Smalltalk(VPM?) ---------------------------- Peter Goodall Smalltalk Systems Consultant ObjecTech P/L 162 Burns Bay Rd, LANE COVE , NSW, AUSTRALIA objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (12/02/90)
In article <pallas.659725362@red-dwarf> pallas@eng.sun.com (Joseph Pallas) writes: |In <5467@taylord> taylord@spock (Don Taylor) writes: | |>As far as I can recall, everytime a big company |>like IBM or AT&T has embraced a small company's product as their standard then |>it has been the kiss of death (or at least of long and lingering illness) for |>the company and the product. | |Perhaps you've never heard of a small company called Microsoft? :-) They are large indeed, but they are also of the "walking dead"... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
pkr@media01.UUCP (Peter Kriens) (12/04/90)
> In <5467@taylord> taylord@spock (Don Taylor) writes: > > >As far as I can recall, everytime a big company > >like IBM or AT&T has embraced a small company's product as their standard then > >it has been the kiss of death (or at least of long and lingering illness) for > >the company and the product. > Joseph Pallas responds > Perhaps you've never heard of a small company called Microsoft? :-) > joe Isn't that company exactly the perfect illustration of that statement?