Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!allenw
From: allenw@tekchips.TEK.COM (Brock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Severe Limitation of Smalltalk for Big Projects
Message-ID: <1384@tekchips.TEK.COM>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 13:52:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekchips.1384
Posted: Fri Jun 26 13:52:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 11:51:25 EDT
References: <3005@oberon.USC.EDU>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 24
Summary: There is more than one Smalltalk implementation in the world

In article <3005@oberon.USC.EDU>, barad@brand.usc.edu (Herb Barad) writes:
> 
> I am currently using PS (on a Sun 3) to develop a prototype of a
> parallel architecture.  There is a severe limitation that everyone
> should be aware of that could limit the usefulness of Smalltalk in
> large projects.

With Smalltalk, like all languages, care must be taken to distingish
between between the characteristic of a particular implementation
and the fundamental limitations of the language.  Some commercially
available Smalltalk implementations have much more severe limitations
than those attributed to PS (its HARD to support a 16meg object
space on a PC) while others do not have this particular limitation.

The suitability of Smalltalk for any particular application will
be determined by the capabilities of both the language itself and
the available implementations.  Please do not over generalize
your experience with one particular implementaton.


	Allen Wirfs-Brock
	Software Productivity Technologies
	Tektronix Inc.
	allenw@spt.tek.com