Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!rex!wuarchive!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: SDK vs Actor 3.0
Message-ID: <n2cG9uxz@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 91 20:28:53 GMT
References: <1991Feb27.173751.2152@beau.adp.wisc.edu>
	<72170001@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 15
In-Reply-To: adw@otter.hpl.hp.com's message of 1 Mar 91 13:05:12 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <72170001@otter.hpl.hp.com> adw@otter.hpl.hp.com (Dave Wells) writes:

   Yes, ACTOR seems to be SmallTalk 72 (language and environment) with the
   language syntax shuffled a bit. As such, it inherits many of the problems
   of SmallTalk which SmallTalk 80 was designed to overcome. In addition, it
   lacks the SmallTalk MVC paradigm (*) for designing the user interface, and
   doesn't put anything in its place. To me, this is an extremely serious
   omission, and leads inevitably to messy, unstructured applications.

What kind of experiences have people had with Smalltalk, Digitalk or
PP, on a 386 machine with Windows?  Can "real" applications be written
with Smalltalk?

-Mike