Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!well!frobozz
From: frobozz@well.sf.ca.us (Jordan Bortz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Comparison of Smalltalk/V, Parc Place
Message-ID: <17896@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 9 May 90 03:41:29 GMT
Distribution: comp
Lines: 93


Well, here's my two cents worth:

	I've used ParcPlace Smalltalk Extensively, and also used Smalltalk/V
	and Smalltalk/V Mac.....my comments are:
	
		1)	The Digitalk products tend to be incompatible with each
			other across environments, which is annoying.
			
			ParcPlace is very compatible across environments.
			
		2)	ParcPlace's compiler is much faster.
		
		3)	ParcPlace supports the Binary Object Streaming Service.
		
		4)	ParcPlace' class browser supports protocols: Digitalk does
			not; this makes it hard to just file in code across the two.
			
		5)	Parc Place has categories and projects.
		
		6)	The ParcPlace toolbox is more complete and better
			implemented.
			
		7)	The MVC system has been ripped out and replaced with
			the Pane system in Smalltalk/V. This is a pain indeed, and
			makes it hard to port apps between ps and v.
			
		8)	Digitalk is cheaper. (marginally, these days!)
		
		9)	Digitalk Mac looks like Mac, etc....
			This is not necessarily an advantage.
			The Mac user-interface is not the end-all be all; having
			applications write into the menu bar, rather than having
			their own menus is unnatural.
			
			The OS/2 windowing system is disgusting to look at;
			it is also bizzare: To Change the LIST Font, you select
			a MENU in the CLOSE BOX??? Only Microsoft
			would think of that!
			
		10)	Digitalk runs on OS/2, and PS doesn't.
			 (People who use OS/2 deserve what they get, in my opinion!)
			 OS2 := CP/M for 1990. How about CP/2?
			
		11)	Digitalk has native code compiler for OS/2
		
		12)	Smalltalk/V has better access to Mac Toolbox.
		
		13)	Digitalk has a built-in unification algorithm to do
			  prolog....But is very slow. ParcPlace should come up
			  with a good method to do unification, as well as better
			  control over garbage collection.
			
		14) 	PS is faster.
		
		Personally, I trust ps better, and feel they have better scientists.
		I also know some of the people there, and they're nice guys! :=)
		I also feel better about flaming them for problems because they
		should be able to fix it! :=)
		
		Also, my system, Tigre Interface Builder/Tigris database would
		not easily run on the Digitalk series....For lack of BOSS for one.
		
		I would be the first to admit that PS looks archaic compared to
		say, V/MAC, but Tigre address almost all of these issues, and you
		can build applications in PS that look *MUCH* better than V/MAC
		with TIGRE.
		
		PS is a much more professional environment to develop in.
		The text editor also works better in PS.
		
		I also like PS compiler/debugger/browser very much, as well
		as having class-hierarchy browser etc....
		
		I also think that their new windowing system will be very portable,
		and look forward to getting Tigre to run on it....
		
		Summary:
		
			If you want to get your feet wet, maybe get /V on a PC.
			
			If you want to do real work, get PS.
			
			If you want beautiful applications that are highly functional,
			or an object-oriented database, start with PS and get Tigre.
			Your apps will run unmodified on PC, MAC, SUN, APOLLO, 
			DEC, etc.....
			
		Jordan-- 
+===========================================================================+
+ Jordan A. Bortz, Tigre Object Systems - Advanced Programming Environments +
+ 408-426-5308        11 Glen Canyon Road Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA          +
+===<ucscc!veda!jordan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>==<frobozz@well.sf.ca.us>========+