home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: clients1.news.internex.net!usenet
- From: "David W. Smith" <dsmith@penergy.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.java,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
- Subject: Re: Will Java kill C++?
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:55:43 -0700
- Organization: Penergy, Inc.
- Message-ID: <316BF61F.65BA@penergy.com>
- 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> <3164888D.2B01@concentric.net> <4kbfn8$1bu@news1.is.net> <3169B9AD.2701@concentric.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.119.116.243
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
-
- Alan L. Lovejoy writes:
-
- > The most important case where Smalltalk can be faster than C is when
- > the initial version of the Smalltalk program is done ten times faster
- > than the initial C version, and the Smalltalk programmer(s) spend
- > the remaining time optimizing the code (by using more sophisticated
- > algorithms, perhaps).
-
- ... or spend the remaining time building a second version, after
- customers have looked at the initial version and have decided that
- their initial statement of requirements wasn't quite correct.
-
- It seems that "sooner" wins out over "faster" in a growing percentage
- of situations these days.
-
- Dave
-