Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!raphael!aro
From: aro@cs.aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Smalltalk performance (was: Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's?)
Message-ID: <ARO.90Oct24150357@raphael.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Oct 90 14:03:57 GMT
References: <1990Oct9.190813.23402@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <2444@runxtsa.runx.oz.au>
	<1990Oct19.180646.8649@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1990Oct19.220747.5536@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: aro@aber-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: aro@cs.aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: CS Dept, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Lines: 15
In-reply-to: craig@Neon.Stanford.EDU's message of 19 Oct 90 22:07:47 GMT

In article <1990Oct19.220747.5536@Neon.Stanford.EDU> craig@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Craig D. Chambers) writes:

   I agree wholeheartedly that anything that convinces programmers to use
   nicer languages like Smalltalk (or, even better, Self) would be a
   Great Thing, and better run-time performance is certainly one
   important factor.

I've often seen complaints about the performance of Smalltalk. To what
extent is performance really an obstacle to the adoption of Smalltalk
these days?  My (very limited) experience is that Smalltalk seems to
produce much more responsive applications than C++/Interviews. Not a
fair comparison, I know, but I'd still be interested to see comments.

Andy Ormsby
aro@cs.aber.ac.uk