Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!robohack!woods
From: woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Objectworks for Smalltalk-80
Message-ID: <1990Feb24.144603.2644@robohack.UUCP>
Date: 24 Feb 90 14:46:03 GMT
References: <5888@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Distribution: comp.lang.smalltalk
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates:  Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 57

In article <5888@blake.acs.washington.edu> benson@blake.acs.washington.edu (Dan Benson) writes:
> I've been using Digitalk's Smalltalk/V 286 but would like to be able to
> go to other platforms eventually (like the new IBM RS/6000 workstations)
> so I am thinking about ParcPlace's Smalltalk-80.

It is certainly nice!  The only problem is its limited portability at
this point.  I understand it only runs on Sun's and DEC 3100's.

> I was told that Smalltalk-80 is a superset of Digitalk's Smalltalk and 
> that it was more portable between platforms.  I'd like to hear from
> experienced users how they feel about ParcPlace's product (apparently
> they like to call it Objectworks for Smalltalk-80 instead of simply
> Smalltalk-80).

I'm not a user, just a fan....  (I spent some time at their booth at
UniForum W90-DC)

Digitalk's "smalltalk" is a subset/re-implementation of Smalltalk-80.
ParcPlace is a collection of former Xerox employees.  They have
purchased rights for full Smalltalk-80, and enhanced it considerably.
It is now a real commercial product, and a useable one at that.
ObjectWorks is the programming environment traditionally thought of as
part of the Smalltalk-80 language.

Xerox have in fact bought it back and are using it to develop some
really neat new applications.

> From what I know, Digitalk and ParcPlace are the two main Smalltalk
> producers.  Are there any more that support popular platforms?

As far as I'm concerned Xerox and ParcPlace are the only producers of
the Smalltalk-80 language!  I beleive the Xerox original version runs
on more platforms at this time.  It is reasonably priced as well.

> Basically, I'd like to hear your impressions of the various Smalltalk
> systems, both good and bad.  Please email responses directly to me and
> I can repost a summary if there is any interest on the net.

I used Digitalk/V some time ago on a 386 system.  It was fast and
usable, but I had some major problems with it.  The allowance of a one
or two button mouse was a real pain in the neck.  They should have
forced a three button one!  The language had a few quirks.  The
compiler was not written in smalltalk.  The set of primitives was all
different (i.e. not bytecodes).  The debugger was severely limited as
such.  The browsers were definitely subsets, and much functionality
was missing.

My prior experience with Smalltalk was on a Xerox Dolphin.

If you want Smalltalk, use Smalltalk, not some imitation!  The same
goes for ParcPlace's Objectworks for C++.  It's not Smalltalk, just a
neat programming environment for C++.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{robohack,gate,eci386,tmsoft,ontmoh}.UUCP
+1 416 443-1734 [h]   +1 416 595-5425 [w]   VE3-TCP   Toronto, Ontario; CANADA