Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!usc!celia!peter From: peter@celia.UUCP (Peter Farson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: Smalltalk for Scientific Applications Message-ID: <537@celia.UUCP> Date: 15 Aug 89 10:15:36 GMT References:Reply-To: celia!peter@tis.llnl.gov (Peter Farson) Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood Lines: 40 In article peskin@caip.rutgers.edu (R. L. Peskin) writes: > > > > >What about Smalltalk for the scientists? > ........... > >How many of you out there in "Smalltalk net-land" are interested in these >problems associated with scientific use of Smalltalk? Let's hear from > The issue of efficiency is certainly one that I think is one of the biggest potential obstacles to the more widespread use of Smalltalk. While the sort of work I do (computer animation) is not really science or engineering, many of the same concerns come up in my line of work. I find that the usual C language environment is very inflexible. It is usually difficult or impossible to have a compiled module load in an independently compiled module at runtime. The standard C library does not include the C compiler as one of it's functions. The UNIX environment is poorly integrated when compared to the Smalltalk environment. A lot of this is not necessarily a characteristic feature of the C language, but just a holdover from earlier days, when more computing was done batch-style. I believe that the qualities that make C very efficient can be retained while implementing it in a way that is more conducive to interactive development. What I would like to see is Smalltalk that had a good optimizing C compiler function, so that the software developer could compile a C primitive just as conveniently as a Smalltalk method. I somehow don't expect that this will be available very soon. -- Can a bee be said to be Peter Farson An entire bee if celia!peter@tis.llnl.gov Half the bee is not a bee ...{ihnp4,ames}!lll-tis!celia!peter Due to some ancient injury?