Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!trantor.harris-atd.com!x102c!rsimonian
From: rsimonian@x102c.uucp (Simonian RP 66449)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Smalltalk/V vs Smalltalk-80 (was Digitalk Smalltalk/V for Mac)
Message-ID: <1528@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Date: 22 Feb 89 13:15:57 GMT
References: <89@<PETE> <67500006@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu> <737@internal.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@trantor.harris-atd.com
Reply-To: rsimonian@x102c.UUCP (Simonian RP 66449)
Organization: Harris Corporation GSS, Melbourne, Florida
Lines: 17


This is in response to questions about the differences between Digitalk
Smalltalk/V and Smalltalk-80.

I have been using Tektronix Smalltalk-80 for over two years, and have just
recently started using Smalltalk/V 286.  Harris has been using Smalltalk
for some substantial AI and simulation projects.  At first, it seemed that
Smalltalk V was a beginner's subset of Smalltalk-80 and not well suited for
real development.  However, as I became accustomed to V's MVC paradigm and
the differences between V and 80, I saw that all the `hooks' for full
Smalltalk are there, but they are left to the user.  I miss the richness
of the full 80 class hierarchy, and V's method cross-referencing leaves
something to be desired.  I have also found that it's very tricky to
port Smalltalk-80 code to Smalltalk/V.

I personnally prefer the full Smalltalk-80.  However, for the price, V
is an excellent package.