Object Design Inc

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


EditText of this page (last edited March 5, 2006) or FindPage with title or text search