home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.magmacom.com!NewsWatcher!user
- From: Jan@Bytesmiths.com (Jan Steinman)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.java,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
- Subject: Re: Will Java kill C++?
- Date: 5 Apr 1996 16:54:02 GMT
- Organization: Bytesmiths, the Smalltalk start-up specialists
- Message-ID: <Jan-0504961051550001@206.116.214.1>
- References: <3134D499.653E@ix.netcom.com> <313613B2.136E@ksopk.sprint.com> <4i7qhl$ik6@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> <4iuhi7$fmf@sundog.tiac.net> <4iumap$mn5@hustle.rahul.net> <31582A45.3742@vmark.com> <3163C031.4FB1@esec.ch>
- Reply-To: Jan@Bytesmiths.com
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.116.214.1
- X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.1.7
-
- In article <3163C031.4FB1@esec.ch>, Oliver Plohmann <opl@esec.ch> wrote:
- > ...With some people you just can't argue that Smalltalk is slow.
-
- With some people, you just can't argue that there is such a thing "fast
- enough," and that Smalltalk clearly meets it for a large subset of today's
- software problems, particularly in larger systems.
-
- But then I don't like malloc(), free(), and automatic variables. Assembler
- with static allocation is the only language worthy of being called "fast!"
- With some people, you just can't argue that perhaps Smalltalk could manage
- complex memory-intensive operations better than C!
-
- Funny how easy it is to flame something while conveniently ignoring
- similar weaknesses in what you propose as an alternative! Java (as of
- today) is no more appropriate for large MIS systems than Smalltalk (as of
- today) is for web applets, but there are always those who insist on making
- grand generalizations based on their unconcious biases.
-
- : Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@Bytesmiths.com>
- : Bytesmiths, the Smalltalk specialists <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
- : "This is witty signature 1 of 47,288."
-