December 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Good practicces! Looking for examples

by Alexandre Bergel

Not sure what you mean with good coding practice, but here my contrib: - the command pattern (e.g., OB, Mondrian Easel, MonticelloBrowser) - symbol polymorphic to block and other object-as-function - writing test before fixing code - having short methods Alexandre On 24 Dec 2011, at 10:53, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Hi guys > > talking with sven during the last sprint we realized that it would be good to collect and document some good practices. > So I started a chapter for PBE2 on coding practices. > > I will take the some of the optimization that sven did in time/date printOn: as a start > > If you have some suggestions with examples I could integrate to the chapter. > > > Stef > > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Dec. 24, 2011

[Pharo-project] Good practicces! Looking for examples

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi guys talking with sven during the last sprint we realized that it would be good to collect and document some good practices. So I started a chapter for PBE2 on coding practices. I will take the some of the optimization that sven did in time/date printOn: as a start If you have some suggestions with examples I could integrate to the chapter. Stef

Dec. 24, 2011

[Pharo-project] [update 1.4] #14264

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

14264 ----- - Issue 5118: Check pointsTo: and InstVarInclude: in squeak. Thanks levente and mariano. http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5118 - Issue 5123: Clone is sent but not defined in FloatArray http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5123 - Issue 5112: More consistent SharedPool protocol. Thanks Mariano. http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5112 Stef (more to come)â¦but this is sunny today :)

Dec. 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] gtinspector

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Thanks Sean. That's much more reasonable :) So ... I will put back GTInspector to my images by loading exactly that. On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>wrote: > > Mariano Martinez Peck wrote > > > > If I just want to install GTInspector > > > > > For now (works in 1.3)... > Gofer new > squeaksource: 'Glamour'; > package: 'ConfigurationOfGlamour'; > load. > (ConfigurationOfGlamour project version: 'default') load: {'Core'. > 'Morphic'}. > Gofer new > squeaksource: 'glamoroust'; > package: 'GT-Inspector'; > load. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/gtinspector-tp4220848p4229945.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Dec. 23, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] gtinspector

by Sean P. DeNigris

Mariano Martinez Peck wrote > > If I just want to install GTInspector > For now (works in 1.3)... Gofer new squeaksource: 'Glamour'; package: 'ConfigurationOfGlamour'; load. (ConfigurationOfGlamour project version: 'default') load: {'Core'. 'Morphic'}. Gofer new squeaksource: 'glamoroust'; package: 'GT-Inspector'; load. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/gtinspector-tp4220848p4229945.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 23, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] gtinspector

by Tudor Girba

Hi, Yes, you can. It's just that the configuration of Glamoroust is not made for that. At this moment, the only way to do it is by loading the package: Gofer new squeaksource: 'glamoroust'; package: 'GT-Inspector'; load. Cheers, Doru On 23 Dec 2011, at 14:27, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > > Tudor Girba-2 wrote >> >> Yes. It will load: Glamour (which loads Mondrian, EyeSee, Magritte and >> some of its unnecessary dependencies :)) > > Is it possible to load the toolkit on top of basic Glamour (w/o Mondrian, > EyeSee, Magritte...)? > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/gtinspector-tp4220848p4228581.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- www.tudorgirba.com "We can create beautiful models in a vacuum. But, to get them effective we have to deal with the inconvenience of reality."

Dec. 23, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Wrong number with message tally?

by Alexandre Bergel

It is not supposed to do: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= MessageTally class>>spyOn: aBlock " Spy on aBlock, in the current process. Can include or not statistics on other processes in the report. [1000 timesRepeat: [ 100 timesRepeat: [120 factorial]. (Delay forMilliseconds: 10) wait ]] forkAt: 45 named: '45'. MessageTally spyOn: [10000 timesRepeat: [1.23 printString]] " ^self spyOn: aBlock reportOtherProcesses: false -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I am not very familiar with the threading mechanism in Pharo, but since factorial does not explicitly give the hand to other threads, how can other threads be activated while the factoring is being computed? Cheers, Alexandre On 23 Dec 2011, at 14:12, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > Doesn't it tally several processes ? (finalization etc...) > > Nicolas > > 2011/12/23 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>: >> Hi! >> >> MessageTally seems to give wrong values regarding the relative time spent. Consider: >> MessageTally spyOn: [ 100 timesRepeat: [ 1000 factorial ] ] >> >> It gives something like: >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> - 377 tallies, 379 msec. >> >> **Tree** >> -------------------------------- >> Process: (40s) 464519168: nil >> -------------------------------- >> 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> ... >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> I would expect to have 100% at the root of the call graph since other threads are not reported. >> >> Is there something I am missing? If no, then I will dive into MessageTally. This is annoying. >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Dec. 23, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Wrong number with message tally?

by Levente Uzonyi

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > Doesn't it tally several processes ? (finalization etc...) No, that would be MessageTally spyAllOn: [ ... ]. Levente > > Nicolas > > 2011/12/23 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>: >> Hi! >> >> MessageTally seems to give wrong values regarding the relative time spent. Consider: >> Â Â Â Â MessageTally spyOn: [ Â 100 timesRepeat: [ 1000 factorial ] ] >> >> It gives something like: >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> Â - 377 tallies, 379 msec. >> >> **Tree** >> -------------------------------- >> Process: (40s) Â 464519168: nil >> -------------------------------- >> 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> Â 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> Â Â 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> Â Â Â 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial >> ... >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> I would expect to have 100% at the root of the call graph since other threads are not reported. >> >> Is there something I am missing? If no, then I will dive into MessageTally. This is annoying. >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel Â http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >

Dec. 23, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Wrong number with message tally?

by Levente Uzonyi

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Hi! > > MessageTally seems to give wrong values regarding the relative time spent. Consider: > MessageTally spyOn: [ 100 timesRepeat: [ 1000 factorial ] ] > > It gives something like: > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > - 377 tallies, 379 msec. > > **Tree** > -------------------------------- > Process: (40s) 464519168: nil > -------------------------------- > 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > ... > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > I would expect to have 100% at the root of the call graph since other threads are not reported. > > Is there something I am missing? If no, then I will dive into MessageTally. This is annoying. This means that some other process (probably the finalization process, since #factorial creates a lot of garbage) was running and/or gc happened during the "missing" 34.2%. The gc times are listed below. Levente > > Cheers, > Alexandre > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > >

Dec. 23, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Wrong number with message tally?

by Nicolas Cellier

Doesn't it tally several processes ? (finalization etc...) Nicolas 2011/12/23 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>: > Hi! > > MessageTally seems to give wrong values regarding the relative time spent. Consider: > Â Â Â Â MessageTally spyOn: [ Â 100 timesRepeat: [ 1000 factorial ] ] > > It gives something like: > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Â - 377 tallies, 379 msec. > > **Tree** > -------------------------------- > Process: (40s) Â 464519168: nil > -------------------------------- > 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > Â 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > Â Â 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > Â Â Â 65.8% {249ms} SmallInteger(Integer)>>factorial > ... > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > I would expect to have 100% at the root of the call graph since other threads are not reported. > > Is there something I am missing? If no, then I will dive into MessageTally. This is annoying. > > Cheers, > Alexandre > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel Â http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > >

Dec. 23, 2011