Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Questions from a novice on development environments...
Message-ID: <6038@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 2 Oct 89 15:29:35 GMT
References: <6023@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <9987@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 32

In article <9987@alice.UUCP> bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:

>There seems to be a misconception that C++ is supposed to be Smalltalk
>(or that Smalltalk and C++ are in some way supposed to be the same).
>It follows from that view that you should be able to work in exactly
>the same way with implementations of the two languages, that you should
>be able to acomplish the same tasks with the two languages, and that
>when you cannot someone has goofed.
>
>I disagree with this premise.

Good! And I'm saving your posting. Here there was a high level management
induced aborting of Smalltalk, with a simultaneous embrace of C++, with C++
being pushed as having all the advantages of Smalltalk, without the 
resource cost.  Anybody that actually compared the languages knew they
were as different as apples and oranges.

When people ask me about Smalltalk I tell them it is a great concept and
program (particularly algorithm) development environment.

When people ask me about C++, I tell them that it is superior to C, and that
all C based projects should be done in C++ (given that appropriate compiler
and debugging tools are available). But I can't bring myself to say that
C++ is an OOP Language. (I've also used Modula-2 a little, and proponents of
that language claim it is object oriented -- also "not true").

The fact is that Smalltalk spoils its users such that most language's OOP
claims bear about as much credibility as a used car advertisement!

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply