Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!bbn!ginosko!husc6!bunny!sg04
From: sg04@GTE.COM (Steven Gutfreund)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: NOOL's (not OOL)
Message-ID: <7414@bunny.GTE.COM>
Date: 11 Aug 89 14:14:23 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA
Lines: 34

I pulled this article out of comp.sys.next from a discussion on the
merits of C++ v.s. Objective C.

In article <5547@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David\
 E. Smyth) writes:
> I don't use C++ anymore.  I just do Object-Oriented designs and programs,
> but I use C as the implementation language.  These object veneers are
> simply not necessary.

This person was fairly upset with the structure, syntax, semantics of C++
(I would tend to agree). However, I would like some more feedback on what
other people think.

I, for one, would greatly miss three major features in Smalltalk if I went back
to straight C.

(1) Polymorphism. It really slows one down to have explicit routines that do
the same thing for different "objects".

(2) The shortness of the Compile/Link/Execute cycle in Smaltalk.

(3) All the great stuff already there in the Collection Classses.

However, I am currently struggling with a project that requires more speeed
and a different graphic imaging environment (3D color). I am debating the
pros and cons involved in doing it in Straight C or linking in C segments
into the Virtual Machine. If anyone else has any additional feelings on this
subject, I could use your input.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  sgutfreund@gte.com
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=