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 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=