Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!lth.se!newsuser
From: dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Redesign more important that language
Message-ID: <1991Jan26.094306.17436@lth.se>
Date: 26 Jan 91 09:43:06 GMT
References: <1991Jan4.004138.7013@ashtate> <22574@well.sf.ca.us> <2961.279ffcba@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Sender: newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server)
Organization: Department of Automatic Control, Lund, Sweden
Lines: 38

In article <2961.279ffcba@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>	Unfortunately for C and C++ users, Smalltalk can provide equivalent
>	functionality in about 30% less memory based on actual experiences
>	in rewriting large C programs into Smalltalk.

Wouldn't you expect 30% improvement in size and speed after any kind
of fundamental rewrite of a system?  I believe that the rare
possibility to redesign and reimplement a software system, with the
experiences from an earlier implementation in your luggage, is far more
important than the differences between some reasonable programming
languages.

>	...  Smalltalk's 4x productivity over conventional languages
>	such as C can not be ignored as a strong indicator of its power.

I seem to recall having seen some figures of programmer productivity
some years back.  I think the figures struck me as interesting but
highly speculative.

Could anyone present the results from some controlled experiment? I
would be interested in knowing

	- what is the defference between a skilled and an unskilled
	  programmer, in terms of productivity?

	- what are the tradeoffs between short-term vs. long-term
	  productivity (i.e., hack vs. s/w engineering)?

	- what is the impact of rapid prototyping?

	- what is the importance of programming environment vs.
	  programmer skill?  Two extreme viewpoints: "a good
	  programmer can work with any environment" and "with a
	  good environment, any programmer is productive."

Any pointers would be appreciated.

Dag M. Bruck