Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:3121 comp.object:3829
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!gumby.dsd.trw.com!deneva!scott
From: scott@coyote.trw.com (Scott Simpson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Subject: Re: Smalltalk scaleability & IdentityDictionaries
Keywords: n
Message-ID: <286A46DC.72E9@deneva.sdd.trw.com>
Date: 27 Jun 91 20:13:15 GMT
References: <1991Jun26.193441.28581@bqnes74.bnr.ca>
Sender: news@deneva.sdd.trw.com
Organization: MASDR Project, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 18

In article <1991Jun26.193441.28581@bqnes74.bnr.ca> CWatts@BNR.CA (Carl Watts) writes:
>Smalltalk scales better than other other language I know of.  The
>reason is simple, you can model everything from the Space Shuttle to an
>Integer the same way.  As an object (that perhaps uses other objects)
>[ More comments about how integers and dictionaries are unbounded in
>  Smalltalk. ]

It that sense of scaleability, Smalltalk fares well. But when I hear
the term scaleability, I think of bigger issues such as how does the
Smalltalk *environment* scale up to large projects of the hundreds of
thousands or millions of lines. In this case, Smalltalk fares very
poorly. Large projects require multiple user concurrency, distributed
data, schema evolution, versioning, support for persistent storage and
managability of non-code artifacts, support for testing and
maintenance and support for process. In all of these areas the
Smalltalk environment performs poorly or not at all.
-- 
Scott Simpson			TRW			scott@coyote.trw.com