Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!sehyo
From: sehyo@netcom.com (Sehyo Chang)
Subject: Re: What makes Smalltalk better than ..
Message-ID: <sehyoD1yp29.HC2@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <3ea2q6$kg8@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> <ANDREW.95Jan4133201@srsunc.shlrc.mq.edu.au> <pdlogan.26.0009779F@orglobe.intel.com> <Pine.A32.3.91.950104163025.39742N-100000@swim5.eng.sematech.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 02:18:09 GMT
Lines: 20

William D. Gooch (goochb@swim5.eng.sematech.org) wrote:
: On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Patrick D. Logan wrote:

: > ....
: > So my question becomes what is the difference between Smalltalk and, say, 
: > CommonLisp?

: As far as I know, no OS has ever been implemented in Smalltalk.  Lisp 
: Machines in the MIT family have their own, Lisp-based OS(s).  This has 
: significant implications beyond the mere fact that it has been done - 
: when your OS and development environment are the same thing, it means 
: that nothing is out-of-bounds (a two-edged sword, BTW).

You forgot David Ungar's work in trying to implement Smalltalk in VLSI.
Also there was Intel's IXP432 effort.  It was 10 years too early.
With today's VHDL and Synthesis technology, it would be easy to design 
SMalltalk based RISC chip that would outperform C++.

-- Sehyo Chang

