* Smalltalk and Ada @ 2001-12-04 19:56 Raheel 2001-12-04 20:37 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Raheel @ 2001-12-04 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, I am writing a paper about the comparison of the Java and Smalltalk languages. Could anybody give me some info, pointers or resource links it would be very helpful to me. Thank you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-04 19:56 Smalltalk and Ada Raheel @ 2001-12-04 20:37 ` Preben Randhol 2001-12-04 21:53 ` Raheel Ahmad 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-12-04 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw) On 4 Dec 2001 11:56:57 -0800, Raheel wrote: > Hi, > I am writing a paper about the comparison of the Java and Smalltalk ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What does this have to do with Ada? Your subject says: Smalltalk and Ada Which languages are you looking at really? Preben -- () Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights. '||} {||' http://www.amnesty.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-04 20:37 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-12-04 21:53 ` Raheel Ahmad 2001-12-06 22:59 ` Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Raheel Ahmad @ 2001-12-04 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Sorry must have been drinking when i wrote that. I indeed meant Smalltalk and Ada. Please disregard the earlier.. As I said any info would be helpful "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:slrna0qcrp.3aj.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no... > On 4 Dec 2001 11:56:57 -0800, Raheel wrote: > > Hi, > > I am writing a paper about the comparison of the Java and Smalltalk > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > What does this have to do with Ada? Your subject says: Smalltalk and Ada > > Which languages are you looking at really? > > Preben > -- > () Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights. > '||} > {||' http://www.amnesty.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-04 21:53 ` Raheel Ahmad @ 2001-12-06 22:59 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-07 14:19 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-06 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw) I suspect you won't find any existing comparisons between Ada and Smalltalk. One interesting observation I have made is the way in which devotees of both languages consider their language (Ada or Smalltalk) to be especially suited to 'software engineering'. Of course, I suspect different people have different ideas of what 'software engineering' means. To some it seems to be about constructing software which operates in close connection with hardware; I guess hardware engineers culturally like to supplant hardware engineering concepts onto software. Ada's areas of application tend to be very much here (more as a result of the history of the language rather than its features). To others, especially Smalltalk people I think, it is purely about the construction of software, but constructing it in ways which have analogies to good engineering principles (e.g. overspecification of a structural member's strength, as compared to redundancy and robustness techniques in a program). Smalltalk has had some remarkable successes in the building of large, complicated applications quickly (i.e. economically) yet with an unusually high level of quality (for that kind of software). Smalltalk is a great language for building (high-level) application software fast. You can start building ideas straight away: you make a list of entities in the application domain, and then make a class or object for each one; add suitable methods, and test them out, interactively; add interface components; add database and/or filing components; connect stuff up, and lo! you've got the beginnings of a solution. Because Smalltalk is strong on things like default behaviour, incremental refinement, and closeness of correspondence between the software model and the real-world model, you tend to be able to push forward rapidly, without having to keep going back and changing your design, or lots of implementational details. Smalltalk has a small syntax, and always has an 'object browser', so it can be easy to learn. However, Smalltalk has some serious disadvantages. Compilation is one. Some Smalltalks can compile to native code, but oh so slowly. Too slow to be a part of the development cycle. It is therefore useless for most low-level programming. Even then, the native code produced will never be as good as that produced by a program reasonably well written in a 'traditional' compiling language (like Ada). Another disadvantage is the fact that Smalltalk makes the assumption that the target is the host, and that this must be powerful enough to support Smalltalk's typically huge memory requirements and a full GUI. Ada has a lot of hidden strengths. It's a very practical language. It has all the (important) advantages of 'traditional' compiled languages (COBOL, Fortran, Algol, C, Pascal, Modula, C++, etc.), but with solutions to (or improvements on) most of the major practical shortcomings of these languages. Nevertheless, Ada is able to live pretty directly in traditional language environments, and can target embedded and 'tiny' environments. It can interface directly with object code produced by compilers of other languages. It is excellent at the low level, and adequate at the high level; this mix can be very potent in some circumstances. Ada has a fair few oddities and subtleties of use; it may be quite quickly learnt, but is less quickly mastered. The best mitigation for this is that Ada compilers catch a great many mistakes (that would be caught only dynamically or not at all by other languages). Smalltalk is all-pervasively object-oriented (it was the language that invented the concept). Ada 95 provides object-oriented programming facilities, but these are (almost) additional to the core language, and can generally be ignored if not required. One interesting comparison between Smalltalk and Ada is that they both support only single-inheritance (a class/object can only have one parent class). The one really big -- stark, even -- difference between Smalltalk and Ada is in standardisation: you will find that every different Smalltalk product is highly incompatible with nearly every other one; you will find that very nearly every Ada implementation is very highly compatible with all the others. You will find useful information on Ada at: http://www.adapower.com I think you will find some useful information about Smalltalk at: http://www.dnsmith.com/SmallFAQ/SmallFaq.html and: http://www.smalltalk.org.au/index.html as well as, of course, the Usenet news group: comp.lang.smalltalk Hope this gives you a little food for thought! -- Best of luck, Nick Roberts ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-06 22:59 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-07 14:19 ` Wes Groleau 2001-12-07 14:28 ` Preben Randhol ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 2001-12-07 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts wrote: > Smalltalk is all-pervasively object-oriented (it was the language that > invented the concept). Ada 95 provides object-oriented programming I know little about Simula or Smalltalk, but I believe the former was around in 1967. Wasn't the latter 1980? -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-07 14:19 ` Wes Groleau @ 2001-12-07 14:28 ` Preben Randhol 2001-12-07 16:51 ` Georg Bauhaus 2001-12-10 3:08 ` Nick Roberts 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-12-07 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:19:41 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote: > > > Nick Roberts wrote: >> Smalltalk is all-pervasively object-oriented (it was the language that >> invented the concept). Ada 95 provides object-oriented programming > > I know little about Simula or Smalltalk, but I believe the former > was around in 1967. Wasn't the latter 1980? Simula The SIMULA programming language was designed and built by Ole-Johan Dahl and Kristen Nygaard at the Norwegian Computing Center (NCC) in Oslo between 1962 and 1967. It was originally designed and implemented as a language for discrete event simulation, but was later expended and reimplemented as a full sacle general purpose programming language. [...] Although SIMULA is an extension of the programming language ALGOL 60, it is not a true extension of it. SIMULA retains the spirit of ALGOL 60 and includes that language as a subset, except for some minor exceptions. [...] Although SIMULA never became widely used, the language has been highly influential on modern programming methodololy. Among other things SIMULA introduced important Object-Oriented programming concepts like classes and objects, inheretance and dynamic binding. taken from: http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis400/simula/simula.html Preben Randhol -- () Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights. '||} {||' http://www.amnesty.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-07 14:19 ` Wes Groleau 2001-12-07 14:28 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-12-07 16:51 ` Georg Bauhaus 2001-12-10 3:08 ` Nick Roberts 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2001-12-07 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Wes Groleau <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote: : : : Nick Roberts wrote: :> Smalltalk is all-pervasively object-oriented (it was the language that :> invented the concept). Ada 95 provides object-oriented programming : : I know little about Simula or Smalltalk, but I believe the former : was around in 1967. Wasn't the latter 1980? I recall to have had a book in my hands with writings of Dijkstra and Hoare (iirc), from the late 50s, one of which is about object oriented things. I could see if I find this again, if you want. Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-07 14:19 ` Wes Groleau 2001-12-07 14:28 ` Preben Randhol 2001-12-07 16:51 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2001-12-10 3:08 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-10 14:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde 2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-10 3:08 UTC (permalink / raw) "Wes Groleau" <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote in message news:3C10CFFD.A09EA803@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com... > > Nick Roberts wrote: > > Smalltalk is all-pervasively object-oriented (it was the language that > > invented the concept). Ada 95 provides object-oriented programming > > I know little about Simula or Smalltalk, but I believe the former > was around in 1967. Wasn't the latter 1980? Indeed I merely repeat others' misinformation (it's a human disease), and stand to be corrected :-/ -- Best wishes, Nick Roberts ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-10 3:08 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-10 14:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde 2001-12-10 17:22 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Gisle Sælensminde @ 2001-12-10 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <9v18tj$c5rhj$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>, Nick Roberts wrote: > "Wes Groleau" <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote in message > news:3C10CFFD.A09EA803@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com... >> >> Nick Roberts wrote: >> > Smalltalk is all-pervasively object-oriented (it was the language that >> > invented the concept). Ada 95 provides object-oriented programming >> >> I know little about Simula or Smalltalk, but I believe the former >> was around in 1967. Wasn't the latter 1980? > > Indeed I merely repeat others' misinformation (it's a human disease), and > stand to be corrected :-/ Simula was definitly the first OO language, and was developed about 1965. The simula developers did not use the term "Object oriented" though. I think (but is sure) that the Smalltalk developers did that. Smalltalk was developed in the seventies and the current version was finished in 1980. BTW, Simula was my first programing language. The University of Bergen, Norway used it as the first programing language until 96. Then it became too difficult to port the simula compiler to new architectures. As far as I know, the Simula langage is dead by now. After Simula, java took over the role as a first programming language. -- Gisle S�lensminde ( gisle@ii.uib.no ) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. (from RFC 1925) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-10 14:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde @ 2001-12-10 17:22 ` Georg Bauhaus 2001-12-10 21:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2001-12-10 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Gisle S?lensminde <gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> wrote: : Simula was definitly the first OO language, and was developed about 1965. http://www.ifi.uio.no/~kristen/FORSKNINGSDOK_MAPPE/F_OO_start.html : Then it became too difficult : to port the simula compiler to new architectures. As far as I know, the Simula : langage is dead by now. Hmmm, http://www.stator.um.edu.mt/simula/cim.html http://staff.um.edu.mt/jskl1/asu/index.html Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-10 17:22 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2001-12-10 21:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde 2001-12-11 20:17 ` John 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Gisle Sælensminde @ 2001-12-10 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <9v2r12$nle$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Gisle S?lensminde <gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> wrote: > >: Simula was definitly the first OO language, and was developed about 1965. > > http://www.ifi.uio.no/~kristen/FORSKNINGSDOK_MAPPE/F_OO_start.html > >: Then it became too difficult >: to port the simula compiler to new architectures. As far as I know, the Simula >: langage is dead by now. > > Hmmm, > http://www.stator.um.edu.mt/simula/cim.html > http://staff.um.edu.mt/jskl1/asu/index.html > > Georg We used the Lund University simula compiler, and the maintainers of it did not want to maintain it anymore, and the 'cim' compiler was not compatible with some the code developed at the university of Bergen (and Oslo). It was also used as an excuse for 'upgrading' to a more modern and fashionable programing language. As far as I know, It's not used as a first language anymore at any university, and I don't know about any code written in Simula still in production. I would like to be proved wrong here. I could not find any information about that on the web pages above. -- Gisle S�lensminde ( gisle@ii.uib.no ) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. (from RFC 1925) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-10 21:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde @ 2001-12-11 20:17 ` John 2001-12-12 0:35 ` Al Christians 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: John @ 2001-12-11 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) I believe BETA, which is now free, is the semi-official successor to Simula. Interesting language and development environment, but doesn't look like it has built up much of a user base yet. http://www.mjolner.com/mjolner-system/beta_en.php /John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Smalltalk and Ada 2001-12-11 20:17 ` John @ 2001-12-12 0:35 ` Al Christians 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Al Christians @ 2001-12-12 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Three or two years back, the Smalltalk advocates were proud that the JWARS system, a big DoD battlefield simulation was being done in Smalltalk instead of Ada or anything else. Anyone know if this project has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish? If the DoD has learned anything one way or another from this project? TIA Al ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Smalltalk and Ada @ 1988-05-02 21:57 Karl A. Nyberg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Karl A. Nyberg @ 1988-05-02 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw) [Ed. - forwarded] Date: Mon, 2 May 88 12:15:22 pdt From: umd5!anna.STANFORD.EDU!tracz (William Tracz) Subject: Smalltalk and Ada I am currently in the process of implementing the first 4 layers of the Smalltalk class hierarchy in Ada. I thought that before I went any further I should check to see if anyone has done it before. So, has anyone in Adaland tried to emulate a Smalltalk environment? (No graphics in this versions) Will Tracz -- your friendly used-program salesman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-12-12 0:35 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-12-04 19:56 Smalltalk and Ada Raheel 2001-12-04 20:37 ` Preben Randhol 2001-12-04 21:53 ` Raheel Ahmad 2001-12-06 22:59 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-07 14:19 ` Wes Groleau 2001-12-07 14:28 ` Preben Randhol 2001-12-07 16:51 ` Georg Bauhaus 2001-12-10 3:08 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-10 14:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde 2001-12-10 17:22 ` Georg Bauhaus 2001-12-10 21:15 ` Gisle Sælensminde 2001-12-11 20:17 ` John 2001-12-12 0:35 ` Al Christians -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 1988-05-02 21:57 Karl A. Nyberg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox