Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!utcsri!utnut!torn!nott!cunews!tina.mrco.carleton.ca!knight
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Unhappy Smalltalk Users
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: tina.mrco.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <knight.822609156@tina.mrco.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: The Object People
References: <DLoDrp.K2K@news.cis.umn.edu> <4e4vp5$knu@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4e5n9q$m50@tilde.csc.ti.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 22:32:36 GMT
Lines: 19

In <4e5n9q$m50@tilde.csc.ti.com> tim1@mimi.itg.ti.com (Tim ) writes:

>You may also want to look at Objective C.  Obj-C is a Smalltalk like 
>implementation of the C language with the benefit of a compiled language.

I can't resist this one. What benefit is that? 

I don't think objective-C gains any benefit over Smalltalk by being
compiled. Any advantage it gains in performance is due to being able
to write C code directly. If you're doing message sends, they aren't
any faster.


-- 
 Alan Knight                | The Object People
 knight@acm.org             | Smalltalk and OO Training and Consulting
 alan@objectpeople.on.ca    | 509-885 Meadowlands Dr.
 +1 613 225 8812            | Ottawa, Canada, K2C 3N2

