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: 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 From: jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/20 Message-ID: <6PE5zLpF3RB@herold.franken.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211237521 references: <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object Date: 1997-01-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Alan wrote: > But replace "PL/I" with "any statically-typed language," and then you can > see the truth: "because any statically-typed language sucks, is why." Come on, have you ever programmed in a statically-typed language? Seriously? What you say sounds just like a Basic programmer whom I tried to convince he should try (just TRY!) Pascal. He said he had seen it at the University, and Pascal sucked... > (Actually, statically-typed langauges have a useful niche, but that niche > does not encompass all of programming). Which? I could state that Smalltalk has a useful niche (that doesn't encompass all of programming), but I don't want throw mud back. > Ever heard of StrongTalk? It's Smalltalk with static typing. It was a > failure in the marketplace. Why? Because static typing is bad, or because it was done badly, or just because the Smalltalk *environment* isn't designed with static typing in mind, or because the Smalltalk installations didn't want to convert because they would have had to retrain their developers? (The latter is one of the main reasons why Cobol and its ugly relatives haven't died out yet. Technical merit is just one factor among many that decide wether a language lives or dies.) > 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. No you can't. This is just rhetorics what you're doing. > 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. I have heard several indicators that Smalltalk is very good at getting stuff done, in the quickest possible time. I'm willing to believe this (sounds reasonable anyway), but nobody talks about the disadvantages in the approach. Those who know Smalltalk program in it, so they won't tell me - and I can't believe there are none. I don't want to be converted to Smalltalk. I want to know about advantages and disadvantages, so that I can decide which language is better for a given task. > Why would Chrysler hire Kent Beck to oversee the rewriting of their payroll > system in Smalltalk? They could have chosen C++, Eiffel, Java or Ada95, or > just stayed with COBOL. Why didn't they? Why choose Smalltalk, when there > are so much fewer programmers than would be available for C++? Why choose > Smalltalk, when there is such a wide-spread bias against dynamic typing? Maybe because they are manager? Not all decisions, even in large companies, are based on rational arguments. There is trust in consultants involved, who aren't always impartial. There is also much internal backstabbing involved - sometimes managers influence other managers into bad decisions, to weaken their internal position. Not that I'm convinced this is the case with the companies that you listed as examples. It's just that such success stories don't prove a thing. It would be much more interesting to hear about the consequences of these decisions, not about the decisions themselves. > Why has the use of Smalltalk been growing at 60% per year? In spite of the > absence of any Java-style marketing campain? Maybe because two companies happened to decide for Smalltalk, which makes a huge difference if the installed base is small. I'm sure any proponent for any other language can make up similarly impressing figures. That 60% figure is worthless - you don't say wether it's number of companies, number of developer seats, number of productive systems, or lines of code. You don't even say since when this growth started - it might be 1 1/2 year as well as twenty years. > Smalltalk offers many times faster development times--and much greater > robustness in the face of changing requirements. That's a strategic > advantage, especially in businesses and industries (like securities trading) > where time is not just money, but big, big money. I already knew this. I consider this an interesting property of Smalltalk, but I'm not convinced Smalltalk is best for everything. And as far as I know, Smalltalk can't be integrated into a multi-language environment (at least not with a considerable amount of work, or with serious efficiency problems), so I'm somewhat hesitant to recommend Smalltalk at all. Regards, -Joachim -- Joachim Durchholz, Hans-Herold-Str. 25, D-91074 Herzogenaurach, GERMANY