Yes, I have seen several Smalltalk implementations that are *very* fast (and, no, Squeak isn't one of them). IBM's VisualAge, Cincom's VisualWorks and ObjectStudio, VisualSmalltalk, Dolphin Smalltalk, Smalltalk/X and Smalltalk MT are all quite fast and more than sufficient for almost any programming task. All of them make it easy to drop down to C in those rare occasions when Smalltalk isn't fast enough.
As far as the Squeak Postscript problem, that is an *application* issue, not a Smalltalk issue. My guess is that the student was just using string concatination rather than streams...a common newbie/student error. That does not indicate any "fundamental design problem" in the language since you could have the exact same problem in almost any language.
Most looping constructs are *not* methods on Integer. Most of them are methods on Collection or Block. The few that are methods on Integer are infrequently used relative to the rest of them (and the ones that are Ineteger methods make sense to me there!).
As to "regexp" search, that's fairly easy to come by in almost any Smalltalk dialect. Most commercial Smalltalk products *do* come with some form of source code control/versioning system so switching between different versions of code is *very* easy. ENVY is actually built into VisualAge Smalltalk.
"Browse Senders" is entirely written in Smalltalk as is the rest of the VW IDE (and every other Smalltalk IDE).
I've been using VisualAge for Smalltalk for several years, and I believe it is one of the *best* commercial development environments I have ever seen. I have never used the AIX version, but I have used the Windows and OS/2 versions. Both were very easy to install and a joy to use.
As far as the name goes, oiginally it was just "VisualAge" (VisualAge for Smalltalk being the first member of the VisualAge brand). When IBM extended the brand to cover additional languages, you ended up with VisualAge for Java, for C++, for Smalltalk, etc., etc.
Basically, your comments boil down to the fact that you don't want to learn Smalltalk because you don't like the installer on one particular dialect. Fine. The VisualAge Smalltalk AIX installer probably could use some work, but that doesn't have anything to do with Smalltalk itself.
Smalltalk *has* a real standard. It has one of the most extensive standards of *any* ANSI standard langauge (it is neither small nor "pitifull"). Java doesn't even have that (and may never have that, if Sun has its way).
AWT and JDBC are no more standard than any Smalltalk vendor's GUI or DB class libraries. Both are proprietary to Sun (and will likely remain that way).
You seem to have your definitions confused. While Smalltalk is certainly not statically typed, it is not "weakly" typed either. Smalltalk uses strong, dynamic typing (objects never change there types, while variables are typed at runtime). Weak typing refers to languages where objects may be easily cast from one type to another (as in C).
Most of the major commecial Smalltalk dialects do detect a variety of "type" related errors at compile time. Smalltalk syntax actually helps you avoid many kinds of type errors that are common in other languages. It is absolutely untrue that Smalltalk apps have more errors at runtime or require more debugging. That is nothing but uninformed FUD.
Smalltalk runtimes may be heavy or light depending upon the dialect. For most dialects, the runtime requirements are a lot less than they are for Java. Several Smalltalk dialects run reasonably well on 4MB 386 class machines and run extremely well on almost any hardware from the last decade.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I have seen several Smalltalk implementations that are *very* fast (and, no, Squeak isn't one of them). IBM's VisualAge, Cincom's VisualWorks and ObjectStudio, VisualSmalltalk, Dolphin Smalltalk, Smalltalk/X and Smalltalk MT are all quite fast and more than sufficient for almost any programming task. All of them make it easy to drop down to C in those rare occasions when Smalltalk isn't fast enough.
As far as the Squeak Postscript problem, that is an *application* issue, not a Smalltalk issue. My guess is that the student was just using string concatination rather than streams...a common newbie/student error. That does not indicate any "fundamental design problem" in the language since you could have the exact same problem in almost any language.
Most looping constructs are *not* methods on Integer. Most of them are methods on Collection or Block. The few that are methods on Integer are infrequently used relative to the rest of them (and the ones that are Ineteger methods make sense to me there!).
As to "regexp" search, that's fairly easy to come by in almost any Smalltalk dialect. Most commercial Smalltalk products *do* come with some form of source code control/versioning system so switching between different versions of code is *very* easy. ENVY is actually built into VisualAge Smalltalk.
"Browse Senders" is entirely written in Smalltalk as is the rest of the VW IDE (and every other Smalltalk IDE).
I've been using VisualAge for Smalltalk for several years, and I believe it is one of the *best* commercial development environments I have ever seen. I have never used the AIX version, but I have used the Windows and OS/2 versions. Both were very easy to install and a joy to use.
As far as the name goes, oiginally it was just "VisualAge" (VisualAge for Smalltalk being the first member of the VisualAge brand). When IBM extended the brand to cover additional languages, you ended up with VisualAge for Java, for C++, for Smalltalk, etc., etc.
Basically, your comments boil down to the fact that you don't want to learn Smalltalk because you don't like the installer on one particular dialect. Fine. The VisualAge Smalltalk AIX installer probably could use some work, but that doesn't have anything to do with Smalltalk itself.
Smalltalk *has* a real standard. It has one of the most extensive standards of *any* ANSI standard langauge (it is neither small nor "pitifull"). Java doesn't even have that (and may never have that, if Sun has its way).
AWT and JDBC are no more standard than any Smalltalk vendor's GUI or DB class libraries. Both are proprietary to Sun (and will likely remain that way).
You seem to have your definitions confused. While Smalltalk is certainly not statically typed, it is not "weakly" typed either. Smalltalk uses strong, dynamic typing (objects never change there types, while variables are typed at runtime). Weak typing refers to languages where objects may be easily cast from one type to another (as in C).
Most of the major commecial Smalltalk dialects do detect a variety of "type" related errors at compile time. Smalltalk syntax actually helps you avoid many kinds of type errors that are common in other languages. It is absolutely untrue that Smalltalk apps have more errors at runtime or require more debugging. That is nothing but uninformed FUD.
Smalltalk runtimes may be heavy or light depending upon the dialect. For most dialects, the runtime requirements are a lot less than they are for Java. Several Smalltalk dialects run reasonably well on 4MB 386 class machines and run extremely well on almost any hardware from the last decade.