From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Alan Lovejoy Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/19 Message-ID: <32E2FEC7.2F7B@concentric.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 210979212 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Modulation mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Damon Feldman wrote: > > In article <32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net>, Alan Lovejoy wrote: > >Fergus Henderson wrote: > >> My experience is that static typing results > >> in faster development time. > > >Really? > > > >So then, why have so many investment banks adopted Smalltalk as the language > >of choice for doing securities trading applications? The reason typically > >given is that development speed in Smalltalk is so much faster > > >try to convince them that the bank > > would be better off using C++? Ha! I can just see that conversation... :-) > > This seems like an unfair comparison. It's like saying, "why don't they all > use PL/I if they like static typing so much?" PL/I sucks, is why. Who said anyting about PL/I? Introducing such an extraneity is "unfair." But replace "PL/I" with "any statically-typed language," and then you can see the truth: "because any statically-typed language sucks, is why." (Actually, statically-typed langauges have a useful niche, but that niche does not encompass all of programming). > If they had _SmallTalk_ with static typing, would they use it instead of > SmallTalk? Since Java is just such a product, and is the hottest thing out > there right now, it could be that people *are* convinced that OO w/ static > typing is the way to go. Ever heard of StrongTalk? It's Smalltalk with static typing. It was a failure in the marketplace. I conclude that static typing succeeds when marketed to those who believe in static typing, and that dynamic typing succeeds when marketed to those who belieive in dynamic typing. And dynamic typing also succeeds when marketed to people who want the fastest development times, and have no religious axe to grind over the issue. Why would Prudential choose Smalltalk as a replacement for COBOL, when they could choose whatever they wanted (http://www.software.ibm.com/ad/stmvs/stpru.htm)? Why would Chrysler hire Kent Beck to oversee the rewriting of their payroll system in Smalltalk? They could have chosen C++, Eiffel, Java or Ada95, or just stayed with COBOL. Why didn't they? Why choose Smalltalk, when there are so much fewer programmers than would be available for C++? Why choose Smalltalk, when there is such a wide-spread bias against dynamic typing? Why has the use of Smalltalk been growing at 60% per year? In spite of the absence of any Java-style marketing campain? Smalltalk offers many times faster development times--and much greater robustness in the face of changing requirements. That's a strategic advantage, especially in businesses and industries (like securities trading) where time is not just money, but big, big money. > Also, can't you just send everything flying around the system as an Object > (root of the whole class tree) in those situations when you want dynamic > typing? Not in Java. Java won't let you send any message that the compiler doesn't know will be valid. And there is no equivalant of #perform: (which sends a message chosen at run time). -- Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================| Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! | alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|