[comp.lang.smalltalk] SoftSmarts Smalltalk-80

jordan@titn.UUCP (08/31/87)

Has abyone played with Softsmarts Smalltalk?  How similar is it
to ParcPlace's Smalltalk? How does it compare speedwise to say,
Digitalk?  Does it use extended memory?  Are runtime licenses 
avaialable?  Can it use large displays?

		Jordan

-- 
=============================================================================
Jordan Bortz	Higher Level Software 1085 Warfield Ave  Piedmont, CA   94611
(415) 268-8948	UUCP:	(decvax|ucbvax|ihnp4)!decwrl!sun!plx!titn!jordan
=============================================================================

ken@pdn.UUCP (Ken Auer) (09/09/87)

In article <199@titn.TITN>, jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz) writes:
> [I've split up the questions in order to field each one seperately]
> Has abyone played with Softsmarts Smalltalk?  

Yes, sobeone has. :-)

> How similar is it to ParcPlace's Smalltalk? 

It is REAL Smalltalk-80 VI2.0.  The only think different from the
original 2.0 is it uses DOSFiles instead of AltoFiles.  ParcPlace is
currently marketing a version 2.1 (or 2.2 ?) which has some additional
features which may not be supported by Softsmarts but, in general, the
code is completely portable.  Softsmarts also has several features
(which were all in Beta when I talked to them last) including color support, 
some form of interface to TSRs (which can be used as a type of
user-written primitives), some async communication support, and some
other stuff I talk about below.  Perhaps Softsmarts will post a followup 
to this article with more detail (...I understand they have a fairly slow 
news feed, so it could take a while).

> How does it compare speedwise to say, Digitalk?

That's a good question... I've used Smalltalk/V only briefly, and it
appears to be faster in a few areas.  However, much of this is due to the
fact that Smalltalk/V is not "Smalltalk-80".  Smalltalk/V's standard 
View/Controllers and fonts are much less complicated (and therefore much 
less powerful) and therefore seem to get on the screen much faster than the 
same for Smalltalk-AT.  With all due respect to Digitalk, however, that may 
be a plus (they've had the advantage of learning from the inventor's mistakes) 
if you don't care about compatibility and some of the more advanced
features which Smalltalk-80 uses for text display.  I think both companies can 
claim speed advantages in certain cases which take advantage of primitives that
one or the other has/doesn't have.  Other than the above mentioned
cases, although I can only speak based upon my perception (i.e. I have no 
benchmarks to back up my claim), running similar code has similar 
performance on an AT (or clone). 

By the way, Softsmarts has a paper which is publically available (from
Softsmarts, of course) which describes the differences between its
product and Digitalk's.  Although the paper naturally is bent toward
Softsmarts, I found it extremely honest and accurate.

> Does it use extended memory?  

Yes.  This could be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on how you
look at it.  I found the 640K limit of Smalltalk/V extremely limiting,
even with the "demand-paging feature".  However, in order to even start
up Smalltalk-AT, you need at least 512K of expansion memory.  Pumping
more memory into your machine gives you a bigger RAMDisk to use with 
Smalltalk/V, while Smalltalk-AT can really put it to use.
The famous price/performance trade-off strikes again.

> Are runtime licenses avaialable?  

They supposedly have a version of their virtual machine in Beta which will 
keep a user from compiling code.  They intend to allow their customers to
sell images coupled with these virtual machines as run time applications 
(with some kind of discount for those versions).  You'll have to talk to
them for more details.

> Can it use large displays?

It depends on what you call large.  It currently supports EGA (640x350).
They have a Beta version which runs with a VegaPlus (?) board which
allows a display of 640x480 (even in color!).  I'm not sure if they have
any plans to support anything larger than that at the moment.  There
seems to be an implementation concern with the size of large Forms (> 64K)
due to those loveable 80286 segments.  :-(
Once again, you'll have to ask them for more details.

All in all, Smalltalk-AT is a solid product.  I've had nothing but great
cooperation when asking for support.  As far as I'm concerned its the
best Smalltalk product on the market for an AT (or clone), unless you
just want to tinker a little, since it is REAL Smalltalk-80.  Yes, it
used to cost about $1000/copy, but I think that it's come down in price.
(The reason for the high price, from what I understand, is due to the
Smalltalk-80 licensing agreement -- which Digitalk doesn't have to pay due
to its "non-compatibility" -- of course that might not matter to your
wallet :-) ).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Auer					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!ken		Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-8307				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-9981

"The views expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of my
employer, which by no means makes them incorrect."

colin@pdn.UUCP (Colin Kendall) (09/09/87)

In article <199@titn.TITN>, jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz) writes:
# Has abyone played with Softsmarts Smalltalk?  How similar is it
# to ParcPlace's Smalltalk? How does it compare speedwise to say,
# Digitalk?  Does it use extended memory?  Are runtime licenses 
# avaialable?  Can it use large displays?

yes, very, closely, yes, yes, no.
-- 
Colin Kendall				Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,akgua}!usfvax2!pdn!colin	Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-8697			8550 Ulmerton Road, PO Box 2826
					Largo, FL  33294-2826