<·······@runbox.com> wrote in message
·····························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> An appeal to the collective wisdom of c.l.l. and c.l.s:
>
> Assume, for a few terrifying moments, that you are a pointy-haired boss
> put in charge of a team who are expected to implement some fairly
> advanced software using a language they don't know.
>
> Given the set of parameters below, would you choose Lisp or Smalltalk
> for the project...and why?
>
> 1. Most of team members are "systems analysts" (i.e. business and MIS
> majors), not programmers. No experience with Emacs or Store, etc.
> 2. Project will be internet and intranet software -> browser-based UI.
> 3. Much of functionality is standard business-type stuff (groupware,
> etc.)
> 4. Part of functionality, however, will rely on natural language
> processing of 30,000 or so data feeds, many of which are XML-based.
> 5. Specific implementation choices are between SBCL or LispWorks and
> VisualWorks Smalltalk.
> 6. Would like to benefit from as much open-source code as possible.
> 7. There are only a couple real programmers to mentor the team.
> 8. Would like at least a remote possibility of project succeeding...
I agree with Steve Kelly's analysis:
"I found Lisp exciting and easy to learn, but Smalltalk even easier.
I suspect VW Smaltalk's better IDE played a significant role."
My own opinion is best summed up by a quote from Ron Jeffries:
"I have programmed in a startling number of languages not (almost)
including Java. There are only two languages worth looking at: Lisp
and Smalltalk. Lisp makes me think in new ways. Smalltalk makes
me think in simple ways."
Noting that Lisp also encourages simplicity and Smalltalk also encourages
new thoughts, this is the best summation I know of the qualitative
difference. Given your project parameters, I think this gives Smalltalk the
edge. However I remark that by narrowing the choice to Lisp or Smalltalk
you have already made a very good choice, and one that is more important
than which of the two you finally choose. If the quality of the language
expert available to you differed significantly, that would be more
important. If, as I understand from your follow-up post, you have your
choice of equally competent Smalltalk or Lisp mentors, I would choose
Smalltalk.
(I will also remark that in its context Ron's 'no other language worth
looking at' was not meant to condemn Python or Ruby for appropriate niches
and as experiments. You remarked in post rejecting those two for your case
that 'I really dig image-based development'. That is my view too; I see it
as something you should give up only if the application has a very good
reason to object to it.)
Yours faithfully
Niall Ross
I accidentally sent the post above from my wife's email account; any reply
should be sent to this post (removing SPAM trap of course), not the one
above, but can of course just be sent to this newsgroup and
comp.lang.smalltalk - I'll see it soon enough.
Niall Ross
> <·······@runbox.com> wrote in message
> ·····························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > An appeal to the collective wisdom of c.l.l. and c.l.s:
> >
> > Assume, for a few terrifying moments, that you are a pointy-haired boss
> > put in charge of a team who are expected to implement some fairly
> > advanced software using a language they don't know.
> >
> > Given the set of parameters below, would you choose Lisp or Smalltalk
> > for the project...and why?
> >
> > 1. Most of team members are "systems analysts" (i.e. business and MIS
> > majors), not programmers. No experience with Emacs or Store, etc.
> > 2. Project will be internet and intranet software -> browser-based UI.
> > 3. Much of functionality is standard business-type stuff (groupware,
> > etc.)
> > 4. Part of functionality, however, will rely on natural language
> > processing of 30,000 or so data feeds, many of which are XML-based.
> > 5. Specific implementation choices are between SBCL or LispWorks and
> > VisualWorks Smalltalk.
> > 6. Would like to benefit from as much open-source code as possible.
> > 7. There are only a couple real programmers to mentor the team.
> > 8. Would like at least a remote possibility of project succeeding...
>
> I agree with Steve Kelly's analysis:
>
> "I found Lisp exciting and easy to learn, but Smalltalk even easier.
> I suspect VW Smaltalk's better IDE played a significant role."
>
> My own opinion is best summed up by a quote from Ron Jeffries:
>
> "I have programmed in a startling number of languages not (almost)
> including Java. There are only two languages worth looking at: Lisp
> and Smalltalk. Lisp makes me think in new ways. Smalltalk makes
> me think in simple ways."
>
> Noting that Lisp also encourages simplicity and Smalltalk also encourages
> new thoughts, this is the best summation I know of the qualitative
> difference. Given your project parameters, I think this gives Smalltalk
the
> edge. However I remark that by narrowing the choice to Lisp or Smalltalk
> you have already made a very good choice, and one that is more important
> than which of the two you finally choose. If the quality of the language
> expert available to you differed significantly, that would be more
> important. If, as I understand from your follow-up post, you have your
> choice of equally competent Smalltalk or Lisp mentors, I would choose
> Smalltalk.
>
> (I will also remark that in its context Ron's 'no other language worth
> looking at' was not meant to condemn Python or Ruby for appropriate niches
> and as experiments. You remarked in post rejecting those two for your
case
> that 'I really dig image-based development'. That is my view too; I see
it
> as something you should give up only if the application has a very good
> reason to object to it.)
>
> Yours faithfully
> Niall Ross
>
>