Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hacgate!ashtate!tomr
From: tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Is Smalltalk for real in MS-DOS?
Keywords: smalltalk, CASE
Message-ID: <1991Jan4.004138.7013@ashtate>
Date: 4 Jan 91 00:41:38 GMT
Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc., Torrance, CA
Lines: 25

(I hope this is an appropriate group - we do not seem to have
comp.lang.smalltalk at my site.)

The January 1991 "Computer Language" features a guest column by
Charles-A. Rovira titled "Another Year of Crisis."  In it he
essentially explains his disappointment with a CASE tool, and his
corresponding enthusiasm for the Smalltalk environment.

So, with no intent of starting a holy war, a few questions....

If Smalltalk really can provide such a dramatic boost in
productivity, why does it not seem to be used much for commercial
MS-DOS software development?  Overhead?  Royalties?  Skill inertia 
by current programmers?

Relating to the above, why is Smalltalk not used more for DP
applications instead of 4GL's?  Shouldn't there be a thriving
after-market selling objects/classes tailored for specific
vertical markets such as insurance, medical, legal, etc?

Again, I am just curious, and am not attempting to criticize 
Smalltalk.


Tom Rombouts  tomr@ashtate.A-T.com  V:(213)538-7108