Xref: utzoo comp.object:2379 comp.lang.smalltalk:2508
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!obrien
From: obrien@aero.aero.org (Michael O'Brien)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Is Smalltalk for real in MS-DOS?
Keywords: smalltalk, CASE
Message-ID: <96006@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 4 Jan 91 19:15:08 GMT
References: <1991Jan4.004138.7013@ashtate>
Sender: news@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: obrien@aero.aero.org (Michael O'Brien)
Followup-To: comp.object
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Lines: 56


In article <1991Jan4.004138.7013@ashtate>, tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes:
|>... 
|> So, with no intent of starting a holy war, a few questions....

	Yeah, it's a religious discussion, all right.

|> 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?

	Some of all of those things.  There are two Smalltalk products
for MS-DOS.  One is from ParcPlace, and its cost has skyrocketed as they
become more and more pleased with their product and target ever-larger
corporations wanting ever more support for ever-bigger products.  Not
much of this makes it into the literature, or onto the net.  They're
pleased; we're not.

	That leaves Digitalk.  It suffers some from a spare class library,
perhaps more from incompatibility among platforms (an area where ParcPlace
shines).

	Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is that the Smalltalk
learning curve isn't a curve.  It's more like walking up a gentle slope
until you bump your nose on a mountain.  It's all very pleasant until the
time comes to actually write a real application, and you find you have to
learn most of the class library before you can even begin to design the
code.  It can be brutal.  My personal opinion is that this keeps a lot
of people from learning Smalltalk.  It seems to be less of a problem
with C++, perhaps (paradoxically) because there is no standard class
library for C++.  Many folks just wind up creating their own.

	The last reason is that Smalltalk has always been perceived as
a "closed" system which cannot call, or be called by, external programs.
This is becoming less true (I myself use it via remote procedure calls
all the time) but it's still a handicap compared to whipping up a quickie
in C or C++ (though the latter also suffers some from either not having
a class library, or requiring you to learn one...and there are several
to choose from).

|> 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, you'd think so.  But 4GL's are usually already targeted
at a specific application area, and Smalltalk is general-purpose.  That
means more work to get the same thing done.

	These are personal opinions; your mileage may vary.  Please stay
away from my vicinity so the incoming flames don't discommode your
lifestyle.
--
Mike O'Brien
obrien@aerospace.aero.org