Recently dropped support for the
SmalltalkLanguage binding of their product to jump on the
JavaBandwagon.
We did not drop support for the
SmalltalkLanguage because of Java.
The main reason was that there just wasn't substantial demand for
ObjectStore from
SmalltalkLanguage customers. Also, our Smalltalk
support was based on heavily modifying the underlying Smalltalk
virtual machine, which meant it could not be used with popular
Smalltalk implementations. Also, the way Smalltalk was added to
ObjectStore was complicated and unmodular and never worked very
well, in my personal opinion.
We added Java support because we (correctly, this time!) anticipated
that there was substantial business to be had in selling to Java users.
I guess I don't mind the characterization of our having "jumped" on the
JavaBandwagon. Languages, like operating systems, thrive because there's
a bandwagon; one supports it because of the appearance that everybody else
is supporting it.
We certainly didn't write
ObjectStore in C++ because we loved C++. In
fact, none of us had any real fondness for C++. (Most of the founders
were Lisp enthusiasts from Symbolics.) Rather, in 1988, we
guessed that it was going to be the dominant language for our target
markets. In 1988, C++ was still new and struggling, but we bet correctly
that time.
I'm still a Lisp enthusiast even though I haven't used Lisp for twelve
years. Compared to programming in C++, I'm quite happy using Java these
days. I have read books about
SmalltalkLanguage but have never had the
opportunity to program in it.
--
DanWeinreb
CategorySmalltalk CategoryCompany