Article View: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Article #1453Re: SDK vs Actor 3.0
From: Michael D Mellinger
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1991 20:28
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1991 20:28
15 lines
1328 bytes
1328 bytes
In article <72170001@otter.hpl.hp.com> adw@otter.hpl.hp.com (Dave Wells) writes: Yes, ACTOR seems to be SmallTalk 72 (language and environment) with the language syntax shuffled a bit. As such, it inherits many of the problems of SmallTalk which SmallTalk 80 was designed to overcome. In addition, it lacks the SmallTalk MVC paradigm (*) for designing the user interface, and doesn't put anything in its place. To me, this is an extremely serious omission, and leads inevitably to messy, unstructured applications. What kind of experiences have people had with Smalltalk, Digitalk or PP, on a 386 machine with Windows? Can "real" applications be written with Smalltalk? -Mike
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<n2cG9uxz@cs.psu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!rex!wuarchive!psuvax1!newsReferences:
<1991Feb27.173751.2152@beau.adp.wisc.edu> <72170001@otter.hpl.hp.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!rex!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: SDK vs Actor 3.0 Message-ID: <n2cG9uxz@cs.psu.edu> Date: 1 Mar 91 20:28:53 GMT References: <1991Feb27.173751.2152@beau.adp.wisc.edu> <72170001@otter.hpl.hp.com> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 15 In-Reply-To: adw@otter.hpl.hp.com's message of 1 Mar 91 13:05:12 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu