Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!umd5!dzoey
From: dzoey@wam.umd.edu (Joe I. Herman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: SmallTalk V or Actor...
Message-ID: <6274@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 16 Mar 90 22:52:45 GMT
References: <592@unicorn.WWU.EDU>
Sender: news@umd5.umd.edu
Reply-To: dzoey@terminus.umd.edu (Joe I. Herman)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 30

In article <592@unicorn.WWU.EDU> n8740725@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Eric "The Rhino" DePoule) writes:

>I'd like to hear from people that use SmallTalk V or Actor or any other
>object-oriented language, which/why they use it either.  ie. pro's and con's
>

We used SmallTalk V as the language of choice in an OOPS course I took
(a pretty good course Larry if you're out there).  My experience is that
there is a significant learning curve to climb, but once over that 
curve SmallTalk V  (well actually V/286, V is a little short on 
tools and screen handling) is a good language for design and prototyping.
I especially liked the strong interactive behavior the system exhibited
towards the programmer. 

I haven't used actor.  The only person I know who used actor gave up
on it after a while and extended XLISP to handle objects and WINDOWS better.

I have used objective C on the NeXT and find it superior to C++.  I feel 
that the syntax of objective C (vaguely similar to smalltalk) makes it
easier to think of objects as objects and not collections of functions and
data.

I realize this is very vague so let me know if you want me to
go into more specifics.

                        Joe Herman

dzoey@terminus.umd.edu
--
"Everything is wonderful until you know something about it."