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: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: Alan Lovejoy Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/21 Message-ID: <32E47ED4.2282@concentric.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211219061 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> <32E40DD8.7B00@netright.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: 1997-01-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Hanley wrote: > > 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. Ok. Why is this 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. I think it has been proven quite well. Believe what you want. I don't have time to repeat the evidence--for which you have offered no refutation. > > > > 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++? Because most follow the conventional wisdom (wrong or right)? Many of those who are adopting Smalltalk tried C++ first. It's why they were open to trying something unconventional. > > > > 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? Marketing and marketing. None for Smalltalk, the most brilliant in the history of computer languages for the other. I's amazing Smalltalk survives, let alone continues to grow, given the difference in marketing efforts. I think posts like this bring Smalltalk to the attention of more people than all the marketing efforts of all the Smalltalk vendors combined. Sigh. > > Smalltalk offers many times faster development times- > > Than what? And what is your proof of this? Than COBOL, C, C++, Java. My own experience and that of many others. Independent studies that have been done. See, for example, the following: . > > -and much greater robustness > > in the face of changing requirements. > > Except for when all your messages aren't working. Do you have this problem often? I don't. In fact, I can't remember any time when ALL my messages weren'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. Yep. That's why the ease and rapidity with which they can be fixed in Smalltalk is so much appreciated. -- Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================| Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! | alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|