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: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: Alan Lovejoy Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <32EEC5BD.408D@concentric.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212887020 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> 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: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Alan says > > "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--which boils > down to big bucks on the trading floor. Could the financial people be wrong?" > > Of course they could .. I know of one major catastrophe in attempting to > use Smalltalk for a large financial application -- which ended up costing > a huge amount of money .... I see. So when a C or C++ or Ada project fails, you blame the programmers and/or the management, but when a Smalltalk project fails, you blame the language? Are you a politician or government bureaucrat, by an chance? > If you assume that popularity is necessarily related to technical > soundness, no doubt you think that MSDOS was a perfect operating > system, and that Lots 1-2-3 macro language is the best programming > language! You are twisting the argument and taking it out of context. Typical USENET bullshit. The issue was why Smalltalk was becoming so popular at financial institutions, in spite of all the prejudice against it. The argument was that the reason for its popularity was because of its superior development speed. The financial folks follow the conventional herd most of the time (such as those who've gone WinTel). The fact that they are NOT doing so in the case of Smalltalk is therefore quite significant. Underdogs such as Smalltalk only get adopted in any significant percentage because of technical merit. -- Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================| Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! | alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|