Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pacbell!hoptoad!peora!rtmvax!mamab!mark
From: mark@mamab.UUCP (Mark Woodruff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Smalltalk versus C++
Message-ID: <1182.23CB0A9C@mamab.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 89 06:08:09 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 363/9 - MaMaB--The Machine, Orlando FL
Lines: 27


 > From: riks@csl.sony.JUNET (Rik Smoody)
 > Date: 9 Jan 89 05:31:47 GMT
 > Message-ID: <10099@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
 >
 > You still insist on C compatibility, but how excited
 > would you be to hear of a board to plug into your 370?
 >
 > You can't go somewhere new unless you leave where you are.
 
I think you're overlooking the architectual requirements to run Smalltalk 
*well*.  C++ runs *well* on most popular existing architectures; Smalltalk 

runs at best only fair.
 
The biggest advantage that C++ has over Smalltalk is that it provides 
userful object-oriented features NOW and for the next few years on 
current architectures.  While that feature may not thrill you, it is 
imminently useful to most folks.
 
mark
 
But then I work on a System/370... 


---
 * Origin: MaMaB--the Machine in Mark's Bedroom *HST* (Opus 1:363/9)