Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hsi!stpstn!lerman
From: lerman@stpstn.UUCP (Ken Lerman)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Choice of language for manufacturing Applications
Message-ID: <5440@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 8 Aug 90 13:33:55 GMT
References: <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <37938@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <5427@stpstn.UUCP> <1990Aug7.143106.27683@cs.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: lerman@stpstn.UUCP (Ken Lerman)
Organization: The Stepstone Corporation, Sandy Hook, CT 06482
Lines: 26

In article <1990Aug7.143106.27683@cs.columbia.edu> kearns@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) writes:
->Brad Cox, paraphrased:
->>  "dont worry so much about the language... environment is even more
->>   important"
->
->In that case, why doesn't Stepstone produce software ICs for both
->Objective C and C++?
->
->-steve


With the usual disclaimer, perhaps it is because:

Quoting Bjarne Stroustrup in "On Language Wars", (I'm missing the full
reference):

	it is easier to design "standard libraries" in a dynamically
	typed language

The article is worth reading because it emphasizes the different goals
(of Smalltalk and C++).  I believe that Cox and Stroustrup would agree
on the importance of the choice of the right language (and
environment). (I'm sure I'll hear about it if I'm wrong.)


Ken