At 09:37 AM 4/10/95 -0700, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>HP's Distributed Smalltalk is a set of classes for implementing CORBA
[snip...]
>Windows, possibly more).  It's very GUI intensive, so an HP3000
>version would probably be a port of the Unix version using X as
>the interface.  This would be less than optimal from a perfomance
>and accesibility standpoint.
 
As a SmallTalk user for a number of years (since DigiTalk's first
(Dos-based) version for PCs), I agree that a comprehensive development
environment certainly benefits from (if not requires) a GUI environment.
But the application or execution model certainly doesn't require it.  The
object model can be made to work with any type of User Interface (even
VPLUS?) as well as any storage model (DBMS/ISAM/flat).  The paradigm isn't
the problem, but as Gavin correctly points out the access to lowlevel
(intrinsic) routines is.  Chief among these problems is the use of shared
library models.  In most cases dynamic shared libraries (XLs, SLs) are
treated as foreign or external routines to which you need to put wrappers
around.
 
What is missing in most of the object-oriented languages is the ability to
have dynamic shared libraries of *objects*.  To do this properly though
would require integration at the lowest level of the operating
system...after all what could be more fundamental of a computer system than
to _run a program_.  The early-binding techniques used by most OO systems
nodays (for externals) are reminiscent of linking with RLs and multiple
relocatable modules - fine for specific applications but poor for operating
system-based features.
 
>Smalltalk is a wonderful thing. I would love to see an optimized
>Smalltalk system embedded into MPE at a low level. Most Smalltalks
>run as a completely separate environment and don't 'play well with
>others'. This greatly limits their ability to be used as general
>purpose tools. You either write everything in Smalltalk or nothing.
 
I agree, but until such time as there is support for late-binding/
dyanamically-loaded shared libraries, that allow developers to simply
"pick-up" a set of object tools, rather than re-invent them each time, then
I reckon OO software will be relegated to specific-purpose applications
which can justify their supporting environment, rather than used for general
purpose development.
 
Cheers.
----
Jim "seMPEr" Wowchuk           Internet:    [log in to unmask]
Vanguard Computer Services     Compu$erve:  100036,106
 _--_|\                        Post:        PO Box 18, North Ryde, NSW 2113
/      \                       Phone:       +61 (2) 888-9688
\.--.__/ <---Sydney NSW        Fax:         +61 (2) 888-3056
      v      Australia