"… built for complete portability. Its compiler produces source code in a platform-independent bytecode. The bytecode is then translated at runtime into native machine code for the given platform. Rating: 9"
Doesn't that sound exactly like Smalltalk?
But instead:
"Because it is not standardized and vendors have created several different de facto standards, Smalltalk has poor portability characteristics, in general."
----
Complexity management (architecture support)
Java does not provide any additional support for managing very large software components, such as subsystems. Rating: 7
However, [Smalltalk] provides no mechanism for managing very large software components, such as subsystems. Rating: 6
So Smalltalk was rated one less when being the same as Java :-)
----
Sometimes the remarks seem aimed at library functionality rather than the languages as such.
"… built for complete portability. Its compiler produces source code in a platform-independent bytecode. The bytecode is then translated at runtime into native machine code for the given platform. Rating: 9"
Doesn't that sound exactly like Smalltalk?
But instead:
"Because it is not standardized and vendors have created several different de facto standards, Smalltalk has poor portability characteristics, in general."
----
Complexity management (architecture support)
Java does not provide any additional support for managing very large software components, such as subsystems. Rating: 7
However, [Smalltalk] provides no mechanism for managing very large software components, such as subsystems. Rating: 6
So Smalltalk was rated one less when being the same as Java :-)
----
Sometimes the remarks seem aimed at library functionality rather than the languages as such.