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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public 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 From: David Hanley Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/20 Message-ID: <32E40DD8.7B00@netright.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211146621 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> <32E2FEC7.2F7B@concentric.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: netright technologies mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: david_nospam@netright.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I) Date: 1997-01-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Alan Lovejoy wrote: > > Damon Feldman wrote: > > 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. That's a good start, but it avoids the issue that most people beleive in static typing, and why this is the case. > 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. This is in no way proved, and, I beleive, false. > > 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)? The made a bad choice. Why did they go with cobol in the first place? Why do so many others go with C/C++? > > Why has the use of Smalltalk been growing at 60% per year? Why is it still practcally nonexistant? Why is java growing many times faster? > Smalltalk offers many times faster development times- Than what? And what is your proof of this? > -and much greater robustness > in the face of changing requirements. Except for when all your messages aren't working. > That's a strategic advantage, especially > in businesses and industries (like securities trading) where time is not just > money, but big, big money. And program problems are big, big problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Hanley, Software Developer, NetRight technologies. My employer pays me for my opinions; nonetheless he does not share all of them E-mail address munged to defeat automailers, Delete _nospam