Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!abvax!iccgcc!klimas
From: klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Smalltalk performance (was: Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's?)
Message-ID: <1701.272d4978@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 30 Oct 90 14:35:52 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> <ARO.90Oct24150357@raphael.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Distribution: eunet,world
Lines: 24

In article <ARO.90Oct24150357@raphael.cs.aber.ac.uk>, aro@cs.aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) writes:
> 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.

	At the recent OOPSLA, I had the opportunity to discuss performance
	of Smalltalk with several sources.  The general rule of thumb is:
	the more OO your C++ the more like Smalltalk your performance.
	For example, A group in France has recently
	completed porting a fairly sizeable Smalltalk-80 simulation that
	makes use of the simulation classes to C++ and received only a 10%
	performance improvement.  Durring one of the panel discussions
	folks from IBM said that the performance differences were not
	a significant factor anymore and that in some cases they had 
	actually seen Smalltalk execute more quickly than C++.