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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,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: <32E302F5.5AC2@concentric.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 210958601 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net> <5bunej$h8m@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> 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,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Fergus Henderson wrote: > > Alan Lovejoy writes: > > >Could the financial people be wrong? > > Gee, I guess you must be right, the idea that the financial people > could be wrong is obviously unthinkable. Oh, anyone can be wrong. Even you or me :-). But how likely is it that the financial people would choose Smalltalk, of all things, purely on a whim? Financial people tend to be conservative. They are NOT early adopters. They do NOT consider it their business to try out new technology for the fun of it. They prefer to go with the tried and true, with the in thing, with the conventional wisdom--unless there is a damn good reason to do otherwise. Dynamic typing is by no means in accord with the "conventional wisdom." And it is well known that there are far more C++ programmers than there are Smalltalk programmers. Even so, many a bank has switched from C++ to Smalltalk or Objective-C/OpenStep for trading applications--and often for many other things, too. Do you really think that someone can go to Citibank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley or Merryl Lynch, and claim than language X is better, and have most of them take you at your word and adopt language X as their new standard? Don't you think they would at least ask for some references? For some other users that they could interview? Wouldn't they do a pilot project? Wouldn't they switch slowly, project by project, and then only if language X actually showed itself to be significantly better? Of course that's how they'd do it. It's standard busisness practice. It's what was done. -- Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================| Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! | alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|