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: 1997/01/22 Message-ID: <32E689F7.8FE@concentric.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211560070 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> <32E47ED4.2282@concentric.net> <5c4iel$3k5@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 x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Fergus Henderson wrote: > > Alan Lovejoy writes: > > >David Hanley wrote: > >> > >> Alan Lovejoy wrote: > >> > > >> > Smalltalk offers many times faster development times- > >> > >> Than what? And what is your proof of this? > > > >Than COBOL, C, C++, Java. > [...] > >Independent studies that have been done. See, for example, the following: > > > > . > > The quoted URL contains a table listing languages and their > corresponding "language level". Unfortunately the data in the table is > certainly not reliable or reproducible, and indeed perhaps not even > meaningful. The explanatory text describes how some of the data was obtained: > > | Research was done by reading descriptions and genealogies of languages > | and making an educated guess as to their levels. > > Our only consolation is that at least the author admits that > "... the margin of error ... can be quite high.". > > Some of the data is patently ridiculous, and indeed the whole idea that > one can measure "language level" on a single scale and hope to get > meaningful results is highly suspect. > > By the way, if you believe that table, then you should quickly switch > from Smalltalk to MATHCAD, since that will supposedly increase your > productivity by a factor of four. The data are admittedly less than rigorous. If you or anyone can find a better source, please share it. -- Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================| Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! | alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|