Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!simtel!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!tmx!news.tmx.com.au!algreen
From: algreen@oose.miller.oose.com.au (Alan Vincent Green)
Subject: Re: Why is one OO language more productive than another?
Message-ID: <DDrHJ0.FFF@online.tmx.com.au>
Nntp-Posting-Host: oose.miller.oose.com.au
Sender: news@online.tmx.com.au (System Administrator)
Organization: The Message eXchange Pty Ltd
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:35:24 GMT
References: <40tcq2$10fa@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <412spj$87s@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <41a52cINNqa7@bhars12c.bnr.co.uk> <41abes$46ig@tigger.cc.uic.edu>
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:37297 comp.lang.eiffel:10544 comp.lang.c++:145483 comp.lang.smalltalk:27528

David James Hanley writes:
>It was a performance-critical
>code that does a lot of fine data manipulation, so it's kind of what
>you would expect ( not a lot of I/O )

I too find Smalltalk does not do a good job of the Dark Corners -
device drivers, hi-performance, comms et.c.

On the other hand it is great at getting The Big Picture done. Program
structure and user interface fall out very quickly. If you want to use
Smalltalk, I suggest you code the data manipulation in C++ or C and do
the rest of the program in Smalltalk.


Alan Green.

