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

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3401 in pharo: Comparison of Urls is not possible yet

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #5 on issue 3401 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Comparison of Urls is not possible yet http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3401 Yessssss please propose something :)

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 1765 in pharo: JPEGReadWriter>>#decompressionTest should be made into a Sunit Test

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #5 on issue 1765 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: JPEGReadWriter>>#decompressionTest should be made into a Sunit Test http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1765 may be not :)

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3689 in pharo: Transcript preference for #characterLimit

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Labels: Milestone-1.3 Comment #4 on issue 3689 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Transcript preference for #characterLimit http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3689 (No comment was entered for this change.)

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3693 in pharo: probable cause of 0 length mcz files in package-cache

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #1 on issue 3693 by ryd...(a)gmail.com: probable cause of 0 length mcz files in package-cache http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3693 Sounds like a good idea, ifCurtailed: might be better for the purpose though. Tell us if you figure out where to put it :)

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] A tinyBenchmark

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Welcome Felipe! stef

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] A tinyBenchmark

by Eliot Miranda

2011/2/10 Felipe BaÃ±ados Schwerter <fbanados(a)dcc.uchile.cl> > Hi Everybody! This is my first post on the list, even though i've been > subscribed for more than 6 months. > > 2011/2/10 Levente Uzonyi <leves(a)elte.hu> > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Torsten Bergmann wrote: >> >> see http://fbanados.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/a-tinybenchmark >>> >>> Maybe Eliot is able to say something here on the main >>> differences between Cog <-> VW VM. >>> >> >> You made several mistakes: >> - You didn't post the source code for #tinyBenchmarks. Do all those >> Smalltalks implement it? Are the implementations equal? >> > > No, they don't implement it. Just Pharo and Squeak. I just added the same > implementation to Integer in VA, VisualWorks and GNU Smalltalk ( > Integer>>tinyBenchmarks, Integer>>benchmark and Integer>>benchFib), so the > source code is the same. > > - You didn't specify the version numbers for the VMs used. Or if you built >> them yourself, then the sourcecode + compiler version + configuration >> parameters. Without these your measurements can't be reproduced. >> > > Every System was the one available from their websites. (Got Pharo 1.2 from > Hudson about 3 days ago.) However, VisualWorks is not available from its > website right now. I installed it from a Cincom CD-ROM I got on Smalltalks > 2010 . > > >> - There are two different Cog VMs. You didn't specify which one did you >> use with Pharo. >> > > Smalltalk vmVersion returns 'Croquet Closure Cog VM [CoInterpreter > VMMaker-oscog.35]'). > But Smalltalk getSystemAttribute: 1008 returns the JIT version, which is much more important for this performance measurement. > > >> - You used a CogVM (JIT) with Pharo but SqueakVM (interpreter) with Squeak >> 4.2. What's even worse is that you based your conclusion on this mistake. >> > > Yes, it is true. Daniel Galdames also pointed this out last night on the > blog. But as I told before, it is just the benchmarks you get from the > "download the latest version available" approach. I couldn't find a > Cog-based Squeak on its ftp site, (perhaps I was too lazy). I won't have the > time to repeat this until next week, then I'll try this. > > >> - Does #tinyBenchmarks alone give fair performance comparison? Hardly. >> >> Well, it was the benchmark I knew of. Do you know a better performance > benchmark available? If so, I could retry the experiment. > As large a benchmark that is as close to your working case as possible. tinyBenchmarks is little more than a smoke test (which is what we use it for at work; if tinyBenchmarks hasn't plummeted ten the build is OK performance-wise). In the Cog-Benchmarks (in Cog package) that I uploaded to squeaksource recently you'll find ShootoutTests which has 4 tests from the computer language shootouts that are pure Smalltalk. > > >> >> Levente >> >> >> >>> Thx >>> T. >>> -- >>> NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! >>> Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Felipe BaÃ±ados Schwerter > Estudiante de IngenierÃa Civil en ComputaciÃ³n > http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~fbanados > Universidad de Chile >

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] A tinyBenchmark

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 10 Feb 2011, at 17:45, Felipe BaÃ±ados Schwerter wrote: > Every System was the one available from their websites. (Got Pharo 1.2 from Hudson about 3 days ago.) However, VisualWorks is not available from its website right now. I installed it from a Cincom CD-ROM I got on Smalltalks 2010 . > > - There are two different Cog VMs. You didn't specify which one did you use with Pharo. > > Smalltalk vmVersion returns 'Croquet Closure Cog VM [CoInterpreter VMMaker-oscog.35]'). +1 There does indeed not seem to be a very good way to get at the proper VM version (let alone build) from inside the Smalltalk image. It frustrates me too. > - You used a CogVM (JIT) with Pharo but SqueakVM (interpreter) with Squeak 4.2. What's even worse is that you based your conclusion on this mistake. > > Yes, it is true. Daniel Galdames also pointed this out last night on the blog. But as I told before, it is just the benchmarks you get from the "download the latest version available" approach. I couldn't find a Cog-based Squeak on its ftp site, (perhaps I was too lazy). I won't have the time to repeat this until next week, then I'll try this. Again, you are right: even though Squeak 4.2 is ready for Cog, there is (not yet) a simple one-click installer using it (as far as I can tell from a casual look). So your experience mirrors what some others might find. Benchmarking is always fuzzy, you picked one that was available and has been there for years, so if it would be no good, somebody should have replaced it. Regards, Sven

Feb. 10, 2011

[Pharo-project] Issue 3693 in pharo: probable cause of 0 length mcz files in package-cache

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Status: Accepted Owner: ---- Labels: Type-ReportDefect Importance-Low New issue 3693 by da...(a)teleport.com: probable cause of 0 length mcz files in package-cache http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3693 I was loading Seaside3.0 into Pharo1.2rc2-12324 and ran into a 'Error: file is too short' error. This is an error that I've seen before, but didn't have an idea how the "too short" file was created. This was a fresh install of Pharo and the error occurred when I tried doing the load a second time ... I had interrupted the load the first time with an ALT-. So I assume that the zero length file was created because I had interrupted Monticello while it was creating the copy in the package-cache ... which leads me to believe that an ensure block could be placed in the right spot to watch for interrupts and delete the file if the creation operation wasn't completed normally ... I haven't found the spot in the code, so this is supposition on my part, but I think it is a good supposition:)

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3692 in pharo: Default line-end convention fix

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #2 on issue 3692 by ryd...(a)gmail.com: Default line-end convention fix http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3692 Eeeeh... Pretty sure the check should be for isMacOS9, OSX uses LF. Would need to check with John which vm's actually return an osVersion starting with darwin though (which the original code checked against) If that is correct, per the comment in isMacOS9, it should be safe to simply drop the check and always use LF :)

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] A tinyBenchmark

by Lemuus

> 2011/2/10 Levente Uzonyi <leves(a)elte.hu> > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Torsten Bergmann wrote: >> >> see http://fbanados.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/a-tinybenchmark >>> >>> Maybe Eliot is able to say something here on the main >>> differences between Cog <-> VW VM. >>> >> >> You made several mistakes: >> - You didn't post the source code for #tinyBenchmarks. Do all those >> Smalltalks implement it? Are the implementations equal? >> > > No, they don't implement it. Just Pharo and Squeak. I just added the same > implementation to Integer in VA, VisualWorks and GNU Smalltalk ( > Integer>>tinyBenchmarks, Integer>>benchmark and Integer>>benchFib), so the > source code is the same. > > - You didn't specify the version numbers for the VMs used. Or if you built >> them yourself, then the sourcecode + compiler version + configuration >> parameters. Without these your measurements can't be reproduced. >> > > Every System was the one available from their websites. (Got Pharo 1.2 from > Hudson about 3 days ago.) However, VisualWorks is not available from its > website right now. I installed it from a Cincom CD-ROM I got on Smalltalks > 2010 . > > >> - There are two different Cog VMs. You didn't specify which one did you >> use with Pharo. >> > > Smalltalk vmVersion returns 'Croquet Closure Cog VM [CoInterpreter > VMMaker-oscog.35]'). > > >> - You used a CogVM (JIT) with Pharo but SqueakVM (interpreter) with Squeak >> 4.2. What's even worse is that you based your conclusion on this mistake. >> > > Yes, it is true. Daniel Galdames also pointed this out last night on the > blog. But as I told before, it is just the benchmarks you get from the > "download the latest version available" approach. I couldn't find a > Cog-based Squeak on its ftp site, (perhaps I was too lazy). I won't have the > time to repeat this until next week, then I'll try this. > Squeak 4.2 is cog ready

Feb. 10, 2011