Choosing between Dolphin, MT and VW

Hi,
    I'm evaluating Smalltalk versions for writing Windows applications,
and I can't find anything comparing these products. I know such a choice
depends on the problem domain - I need to write Active/X plugins for IE,
COM servers and standalone applications using Active/X (primarily
embedding the Web Browser). The apps need to look completely slick.

I have eval copies of Dolphin Pro 4 and MT 4, and I'm intending to
download the VW eval.

I'm hoping that someone can point me to a comparison. Any help would be
much appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Antony Blakey
Linkuistics P/L

Antony,

a very interesting point might be the pricing model of the vendor.
Are you going to develop individual software or bundled products? What
is your expectation for revenue?
What degree of portability across platforms do you need (sounds like you
only need Windows).


Joachim

Sad to say (since I work for Cincom) your requirements probably rule out
VW, at least at the moment. IE6 has dropped support for plugins using the
Netscape API, which was how the VisualWorks plugin worked, and we have not
had resources to fix that in time for VW7. Also, the VW COM connectivity,
while it works, is not as nice as in the more Windows-centric systems like
Dolphin or presumably MT.

Antony Blakey <[hidden email]> wrote in news:3C948EB9.2050505
@ihug.com.au:

Joachim Tuchel wrote:
We are developing both Individual software products, sometimes *very*
small, and bundled tools for configuring a Java J2EE product we have. It
would be good if we could use the full range of pricing models i.e.
freeware, shareware, low-cost, high-cost, bundled software. I am aware
of the the Cincom pricing model.

I don't want to develop cross-platform because GUI products developed
that way never seem to look *really* slick on windows.

Antony Blakey wrote:

>
> I don't want to develop cross-platform because GUI products developed
> that way never seem to look *really* slick on windows.

Well I cant agree with this.  I have done some really slick looking and (I
think more important) acting interfaces using VW.  Could not imaging trying to
do them using standard widgets that did not give me full and complete control.

Chris Lopeman wrote:
> Antony Blakey wrote>>I don't want to develop cross-platform because GUI products developed
>>that way never seem to look *really* slick on windows.
>
> Well I cant agree with this.  I have done some really slick looking and (I
> think more important) acting interfaces using VW.  Could not imaging trying to
> do them using standard widgets that did not give me full and complete control

Alan Knight from Cincom advised against VW *for my purposes* on purely
technical grounds, and Visual Age at A$10,000 per user is out of the
question. I want to develop US$29.95 products (and more expensive
products later), so I'm expecting Visual C++ prices.

If I use standard widgets then my application will look 'right' on
Windows XP. I can use things like the Windows Rebar control for
toolbars, and I'm less likely to be limited by bugs in the development
platforms conformance to platform interface conventions. I get
Accessibility support, Input Method support etc. And I want to embed IE
as an Active/X control without having to (re-)become a complete Windows
expert because I've purged that knowledge after 7 years of Linux and
Java, and life's too short.

BTW: I'm no fan of Microsoft (quite the opposite), but I'm a fan of the
overall aesthetics and usability of Windows - but I *REALLY* don't want
to start a flamewar on this issue - I just need some experiental advice
on platform.

So it looks like Dolphin or MT. Now ... which one?

In article <[hidden email]>,
Antony Blakey  <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hmm - Small VAR program gets you all Cincom Smalltalk - including
ObjectStudio, which is native to Windows - for $500 per year per
developer.  You then pay 6% of annual (Smalltalk based) Revenues, with the
$500 per developer being a payment towards that.  If you are selling
$30.00 products, you would have to ship 278 copies before you owed more
than the initial $500 (assuming one developer).  

For your purposes, Cincom Smalltalk can be <quite> affordable.  You can also
pay more upfront to reduce the percentage paid.  

MSDN will run you more than that, and you'll want MSDN if you go with
Visual C++.  
 

>If I use standard widgets then my application will look 'right' on
>Windows XP. I can use things like the Windows Rebar control for
>toolbars, and I'm less likely to be limited by bugs in the development
>platforms conformance to platform interface conventions. I get
>Accessibility support, Input Method support etc. And I want to embed IE
>as an Active/X control without having to (re-)become a complete Windows
>expert because I've purged that knowledge after 7 years of Linux and
>Java, and life's too short.
>

Well, All I can do is suggest that you download Cincom Smalltalk
non-commercial from http://www.cincom.com/smalltalk and take a look.  The
new release (out in April) will look even nicer than what's there now.

>BTW: I'm no fan of Microsoft (quite the opposite), but I'm a fan of the
>overall aesthetics and usability of Windows - but I *REALLY* don't want
>to start a flamewar on this issue - I just need some experiental advice
>on platform.
>
>So it looks like Dolphin or MT. Now ... which one?
>


--
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[hidden email]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>

[hidden email] wrote:
I sure don't want to go Visual C++! Cincom pricing looks reasonable.
Certainly not the 'ha ha ha I laughed so hard I nearly died' pricing for
VisualAge, but I understand that's horses for courses.

I intend to download Cincom to check it out - although I have an
immediate requirement for Windows COM/ActiveX I may in the future want
to develop cross-platform, and obviously Cincom is the alternative for
me there.

Alan Knight's recommendation against VW for my immediate reqruirements
was on the basis of COM/ActiveX support and the ability to write an
ActiveX plugin for IE. I'm more likely to use VW in the future because
of vendor advice like that. Kudos to you guys!

Antony Blakey <[hidden email]> writes:

I don't thing your customers are going to be impressed with a non-cross-
platform tool for the configuration of what is a fundamentally cross-
platform technology (J2EE).  Surely the best approach for this kind of
thing would be something server-side with a web interface.

Steve
>

Antony,

>     I'm evaluating Smalltalk versions for writing Windows applications,
> and I can't find anything comparing these products. I know such a choice
> depends on the problem domain - I need to write Active/X plugins for IE,
> COM servers and standalone applications using Active/X (primarily
> embedding the Web Browser). The apps need to look completely slick.
>
> I have eval copies of Dolphin Pro 4 and MT 4, and I'm intending to
> download the VW eval.

Just a couple of points concerning the Dolphin eval copy that you have.
Dolphin 4 can create out-of-proc ActiveX components (which is probably not
what you want). Dolphin 5 (due out in around 2-4 weeks) can create in-proc
components in DLLs. It also has an improved deployment model for EXE and
DLLs where the VM can be rolled up into a single executable file with your
application and the resultant file sizes are still around 50% smaller that
those produced with Dolphin 4.

The other important thing from the developer's perspective, is that Dolphin
5 Professional includes a fully integrated version of the Refactoring
Browser from Refactory Inc.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Andy Bower
Object Arts Ltd.
http://www.object-arts.com
---
Are you trying too hard?
http://www.object-arts.com/Relax.htm
---

I have used both dolphin & MT.  If you are a windows expert then MT has more
power on this side.  If you are not a windows expert,  then I would
definitely go with Dolphin.  They are both great products for the money.
The Dolphin user group is one of the most active ones.  But then I have
always received extremely good support from MT as well.  One other factor
for MT would be its speed & size advantage.  Its a hard choice, I like both
of these products.
--Gary Overgard

"Antony Blakey" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...

ObjectStudio might be solution !!!! It has good COM support.


"Alan Knight" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:Xns91D4A2C38E449knightacmorg@66.185.95.104...

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message news:<a74dkn$icufb$[hidden email]>... Will Dolphin 5 allow the developer to fill in their own version info
when viewed under window's properties menu (version, company name,
copyright , comments etc)?

Is there a Dolphin 5 features/enhancement list?

thanks,

Glen

"Glen Bojsza" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
> >
> Will Dolphin 5 allow the developer to fill in their own version info
> when viewed under window's properties menu (version, company name,
> copyright , comments etc)?

Yes.

Regards

Blair

> >     I'm evaluating Smalltalk versions for writing Windows applications,
> > and I can't find anything comparing these products. I know such a choice
> > depends on the problem domain - I need to write Active/X plugins for IE,
> > COM servers and standalone applications using Active/X (primarily
> > embedding the Web Browser). The apps need to look completely slick.

Since MT is the only Smalltalk able to write COM components you
have no option. You are not able to write explorer extensions with
Dolphin or VW.

MT is really a powerfull system with good support. I use it too.
(implementing a graphic editor running inside of IE).
Check the evaluation version. You will find samples for Active/X
controls as well as explorer extensions, COM components, ...

You should also have a look at the new Direct/X Samples.
See www.genify.com or www.objectconnect.com

Keep on talking small
Torsten

"Torsten Bergmann" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
> > >     I'm evaluating Smalltalk versions for writing Windows
applications,
> > > and I can't find anything comparing these products. I know such a
choice
> > > depends on the problem domain - I need to write Active/X plugins for
IE,
> > > COM servers and standalone applications using Active/X (primarily
> > > embedding the Web Browser). The apps need to look completely slick.
>
> Since MT is the only Smalltalk able to write COM components you
> have no option....

What a load of nonsense. Get your facts straight.

Blair

"Blair McGlashan" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:a78fad$jdm5q$[hidden email]...
To be somewhat fair here, I know that Torsten is aware that many Smalltalk's
have been able to integrate with COM for a long time. Digitalk, VisualAge,
VW, MT, Dolphin, QKS-Smalltalk, etc. Specifically they had been able to be
clients of COM components/services, and in some cases they had been able to
be COM/Component servers [but other than MT, not as DLL's or In-Proc
servers].

Torsten is a native German speaker and I suspect he was not thinking
carefully or being clear in his posting response. Torsten has done very
extensive work in COM and Win32, and originally found that only MT provided
the features he needed. Specifically, the capability to make in-proc
components as DLL's [including dual-interface components].

The ability to produce DLL's and function as in-proc server/components is
the basic architecture of SmallScript [noting that Dolphin, as a whole, has
a richer and more mature library of COM related interfaces]. The SmallScript
VM itself is an in-proc COM component. The SmallScript system is designed
from the ground up to serve in the scripting and component world, so there
are some distinct differences in architecture and design that come into
play. Once SmallScript work has been completed for its own VBScript/VB
compiler with WSH/WSA integration both for classic Win32 and .NET, it will
offer one of the richest COM+ component architectures.

My understanding is that as of Dolphin Smalltalk version 5, the capability
for in-proc components as DLL's will also be available for all
developers/users of the Dolphin Smalltalk dialect. Which will make Dolphin
Smalltalk the first "ANSI compatible" Smalltalk to offer a "full range" of
COM server/services.

-- Dave S. [www.smallscript.org]

>
> Blair
>
>

> What a load of nonsense. Get your facts straight.
>
> Blair

Ohh ... sorry. Looks like I've not visited the Dolphin
webpage for months. Dolphin now seems to have a deeper
COM integration than I know from previous versions.

Blair - can you tell me a little bit more about the creation
of COM components in Dolphin? Is it possible to write
Non-gui In-proc COM servers? Is there a sample webpage with
some Active/X examples or does the trial version include
some samples? Do you provide a sample for explorer namespace
extensions and/or control panel applets ?

Bye
Torsten

"Torsten Bergmann" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
> > What a load of nonsense. Get your facts straight.
> >
> > Blair
>
> Ohh ... sorry. Looks like I've not visited the Dolphin
> webpage for months. Dolphin now seems to have a deeper
> COM integration than I know from previous versions.

Well it has been possible to implement COM servers in Dolphin since the
first release back in 1997, just as it is in most major Smalltalks. D3 (I
seem to recall) added framework support for implementing IDispatch which was
missing in 1 and 2. D5 (currently in beta) can implement in-proc DLLs. The
remaining limitations are:
1) There is no framework support for implementing OCXs (i.e. visual
controls), though this does not mean that it is not possible, just that it
would be a lot of work to implement all the necessary interfaces.
2) Multi-threaded threading models are not supported, so MT (and presumably
Smallscript) remain the only sensible choices when implementing COM
components to run under MTS (for example). This is not really an issue for
most client side programming though.

>
> Blair - can you tell me a little bit more about the creation
> of COM components in Dolphin?

Try searching the Dolphin newsgroup archives or the Dolphin wiki.

>..Is it possible to write
> Non-gui In-proc COM servers?

Yes, in D5 (which as I say, is currently in beta). Actually Dolphin has run
as a specific in-process COM server for some time - the Web browser plugin
is actually implemented in this way, and it is possible to start a Dolphin
development environment up inside the client, whether it be VB, IE, or
whatever. In D5 the mechanism has been generalized, and consequently the
same applies when developing in-proc components. Thus one doesn't have to
actually "build" the component to test, even when testing it inside a
third-party client. This means that one can write the implementation of the
COM server objects in the debugger in a normal Smalltalk XP fashion, and use
all the standard interactive development tools.

>...Is there a sample webpage with
> some Active/X examples or does the trial version include
> some samples? Do you provide a sample for explorer namespace
> extensions and/or control panel applets ?

No. In-proc support is new and at the moment we are most interested in
getting D5 out of the door. With that out of the way I am intending on doing
some more samples, certainly including a shell extension one.

Regards

Blair