tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) (01/04/91)
(I hope this is an appropriate group - we do not seem to have comp.lang.smalltalk at my site.) The January 1991 "Computer Language" features a guest column by Charles-A. Rovira titled "Another Year of Crisis." In it he essentially explains his disappointment with a CASE tool, and his corresponding enthusiasm for the Smalltalk environment. So, with no intent of starting a holy war, a few questions.... If Smalltalk really can provide such a dramatic boost in productivity, why does it not seem to be used much for commercial MS-DOS software development? Overhead? Royalties? Skill inertia by current programmers? Relating to the above, why is Smalltalk not used more for DP applications instead of 4GL's? Shouldn't there be a thriving after-market selling objects/classes tailored for specific vertical markets such as insurance, medical, legal, etc? Again, I am just curious, and am not attempting to criticize Smalltalk. Tom Rombouts tomr@ashtate.A-T.com V:(213)538-7108
obrien@aero.aero.org (Michael O'Brien) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan4.004138.7013@ashtate>, tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: |>... |> So, with no intent of starting a holy war, a few questions.... Yeah, it's a religious discussion, all right. |> If Smalltalk really can provide such a dramatic boost in |> productivity, why does it not seem to be used much for commercial |> MS-DOS software development? Overhead? Royalties? Skill inertia |> by current programmers? Some of all of those things. There are two Smalltalk products for MS-DOS. One is from ParcPlace, and its cost has skyrocketed as they become more and more pleased with their product and target ever-larger corporations wanting ever more support for ever-bigger products. Not much of this makes it into the literature, or onto the net. They're pleased; we're not. That leaves Digitalk. It suffers some from a spare class library, perhaps more from incompatibility among platforms (an area where ParcPlace shines). Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is that the Smalltalk learning curve isn't a curve. It's more like walking up a gentle slope until you bump your nose on a mountain. It's all very pleasant until the time comes to actually write a real application, and you find you have to learn most of the class library before you can even begin to design the code. It can be brutal. My personal opinion is that this keeps a lot of people from learning Smalltalk. It seems to be less of a problem with C++, perhaps (paradoxically) because there is no standard class library for C++. Many folks just wind up creating their own. The last reason is that Smalltalk has always been perceived as a "closed" system which cannot call, or be called by, external programs. This is becoming less true (I myself use it via remote procedure calls all the time) but it's still a handicap compared to whipping up a quickie in C or C++ (though the latter also suffers some from either not having a class library, or requiring you to learn one...and there are several to choose from). |> Relating to the above, why is Smalltalk not used more for DP |> applications instead of 4GL's? Shouldn't there be a thriving |> after-market selling objects/classes tailored for specific |> vertical markets such as insurance, medical, legal, etc? Again, you'd think so. But 4GL's are usually already targeted at a specific application area, and Smalltalk is general-purpose. That means more work to get the same thing done. These are personal opinions; your mileage may vary. Please stay away from my vicinity so the incoming flames don't discommode your lifestyle. -- Mike O'Brien obrien@aerospace.aero.org
jjacobs@well.sf.ca.us (Jeffrey Jacobs) (01/12/91)
Smalltalk is a very large system, with only two vendors, ParcPlace and Digitalk. Compatibility between the two is so-so. DT is concentrating primarily on OS/2, ParcPlace on various UNIX platforms. Performance is generally on the slow side. This really isn't a compiler per se, nor are the runtime facilities particularly well suited to commercial development. The language/paradigm is somewhat difficult for people to learn. Finally, 4GL's are more attuned to handling large amounts and sets of data. ST is targeted at sophisticated user interactions and graphics. Jeffrey M. Jacobs ConsArt Systems Inc, Technology & Management Consulting P.O. Box 3016, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 voice: (213)376-3802, E-Mail: 76702.456@COMPUSERVE.COM
jjacobs@well.sf.ca.us (Jeffrey Jacobs) (01/12/91)
It should also be pointed out that Tektronix at one time marketed a *very* nice Smalltalk workstation, which failed due to lack of interest. Jeffrey M. Jacobs ConsArt Systems Inc, Technology & Management Consulting P.O. Box 3016, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 voice: (213)376-3802, E-Mail: 76702.456@COMPUSERVE.COM