May 2015 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] On Missing Class: Why not describe error?

by Damien Pollet

Same for methods with syntax errors. A stub method could be installed insteadâ¦ either an actual method with the incorrect source code as a comment, or a dedicated method-like object. On 11 May 2015 at 14:40, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > Current implementation: > MethodDeclaration>>#handleMissingBehavior > "self error: ('Cannot install method in unexistent behavior {1}' > format: > {(behaviorName asString)})" > > (MissingClassError > className: behaviorName asString) > signal > > Any reason not to make it: > MethodDeclaration>>#handleMissingBehavior > > (MissingClassError > className: behaviorName asString) > signal: 'Cannot install method in unexistent behavior', > behaviorName > asString > ? > > It seems so obvious that I'm sure I must be missing something important! > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/On-Missing-Class-Why-not-describe-error-tp4825681.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

May 11, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] A fast Transcript

by Tudor Girba

Hi, On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tudor, > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eliot, >> >> Just a question: Could you describe the situations when you need to have >> the Transcript editable? >> >> I am not trying to provoke you, >> > > my reputation preceeds me ;-) > :) > > >> but to understand use cases. While working on GT I found that it is often >> possible to support the same use cases with multiple UI solutions. And >> sometimes considering alternatives leads to interesting results. >> > > While I have an over-full transcript that holds progress over time, notes > etc, these could be moved to a workspace. What I really use editablity in > the transcript for is to cut-down output. For example, if I'm analysing > some jitted code it will get printed out in the transcript (without a lot > of retooling) and it is very convenient to cut down the often large amount > of output to focus on what I'm interested in. Or I might be trying to fix > a bug with repeated runs and again collect relevant data (print outs of > objects or stack frames from the simulator) for use as reference points in > later runs. Or I might collect some warnings from the Slang SMalltalk-to-C > translator. > > In short, there's a lot of different kinds of data going to the transcript > and it can be useful to edit it in place instead of having to copy it > elsewhere. > Interesting. While I see how text editing can be used for these use cases, I also think that there might be other options. For example, for cutting output it would be enough to have something working on the rendering level only (like collapsing lines) without impacting the content. Cheers, Doru > >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Juan, >>> >>> I see that your new transcript is indeed much faster but is also not >>> editable. I wonder if it would be possible to have the best of both worlds >>> and arrange that, when active, the transcript is editable. For example, >>> selecting the TranscriptWIndow could put it into a mode where the >>> transcript's state was imported into a more conventional editable text >>> morph, and then when the window was exited, reverted to the standard fast >>> output mode. As you can infer I like having an editable transcript. I can >>> do without it, because Squeak's slow transcript is indeed a PITA, but I'm >>> not sure that speed need preclude editability. >>> >>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:17 AM, J. Vuletich (mail lists) < >>> juanlists(a)jvuletich.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> (below) >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com>: >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Eliot Miranda < >>>>> eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> From my limited experience bug hunting, calling #changed: from a >>>>>>> thread >>>>>>> other than the UI thread is a source of evil. There are too many >>>>>>> assumptions throughout the system that the UI is single threaded. >>>>>>> Can >>>>>>> anyone advise me that is not a proper belief? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then that implies that a Transcript implementation where #nextPut: >>>>>>> direct >>>>>>> calls #changed: >>>>>>> is not appropriate for use with multi-threaded applications. In >>>>>>> Pharo, >>>>>>> #changed: is only called from #stepGlobal, which is called from >>>>>>> doOneCycle:. (This came about as a last minute bug fix before Pharo >>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>> release and maybe could use some cleanup. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Separating the UI from Transcript into its own viewer might be a good >>>>>>> idea, but actually it would not solve Stef's case since his code >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> still be running in the UI thread -- unless the viewer ran in another >>>>>>> thread, which would have its own complexities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the point about efficiency is significant. The following >>>>>>> example... >>>>>>> Time millisecondsToRun: [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ Transcript show: >>>>>>> 'x' >>>>>>> ] ] >>>>>>> on Squeak 4.5 --> 12749ms >>>>>>> on Pharo 50029 --> 2ms >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This better performance helped me a lot trying to understand the high >>>>>>> priority timerEventLoop being able to indiscriminately scatter >>>>>>> Transcript >>>>>>> tracing through that code. I believe its also probably beneficial >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> working with externally triggered semaphores and timing sensitive >>>>>>> race >>>>>>> conditions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So we have two mutually exclusive cases: >>>>>>> * better interactivity, poorer system performance >>>>>>> * faster system performance, worse interactivity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which of these is broken depends on your viewpoint. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Something that runs fast but is incorrect is still incorrect. The >>>>>> fact >>>>>> that the transcript doesn't output until a world step is possible is a >>>>>> bug. It forces programs that use the transcript to be rewritten in >>>>>> order >>>>>> to see transcript output. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> As a point of comparison for correctness, for the following... >>>>> >>>>> Transcript clear. >>>>> [ $a asciiValue to: $z asciiValue do: [ :c | >>>>> [ 1 to: 9 do: [ :i | Transcript show: c asCharacter printString , i >>>>> printString , ' ' ] ] forkAt: 40 >>>>> ]. >>>>> ] forkAt: 41 >>>>> >>>>> Squeak 4.5 gives... >>>>> $a1 $a2 $a3 $a4 $a5 $a6 $a7 $a8 $a9 $b1 $b2 $b3 $b4 $b5 $b5 $c1 $c2 >>>>> $c3 $c4 >>>>> $c5 $c6 $c7 $c8 $c9 $d1 $d2 $d3 $d4 $d5 $d6 $d7 $d8 $d9 $d9 $e2 $g2 >>>>> $h2 $h2 >>>>> $i2 $k2 $k2 $l2 $n2 $n2 $o2 $o2 $r2 $s2 $t2 $u2 $u2 $v2 $x2 $y2 $z2 >>>>> $z2 $b7 >>>>> $f3 $e3 $e3 $g3 $j3 $h3 $i3 $k3 $k3 $m3 $n3 $p3 $p3 $q3 $o3 $s3 $t3 >>>>> $t3 $u3 >>>>> $v3 $x3 $y3 $z3 $b8 $f4 $e4 $e4 $g4 $h4 $i4 $k4 $l4 $m4 $m4 $n4 $r4 >>>>> $q4 $o4 >>>>> $o4 $s4 $w4 $u4 $u4 $v4 $y4 $y4 $z4 $z4 $f5 $j5 $j5 $g5 $i5 $k5 $l5 >>>>> $l5 $m5 >>>>> $m5 $n5 $q5 $o5 $s5 $s5 $t5 $u5 $u5 $x5 $y5 $z5 $f6 $f6 $h6 $h6 $g6 >>>>> $g6 $k6 >>>>> $p6 $m6 $r6 $r6 $n6 $o6 $s6 $s6 $w6 $u6 $x6 $x6 $e7 $f7 $j7 $h7 $h7 >>>>> $i7 $l7 >>>>> $l7 $k7 $m7 $m7 $q7 $n7 $n7 $o7 $t7 $w7 $w7 $u7 $v7 $x7 $z7 $z7 $e8 >>>>> $e8 $h8 >>>>> $g8 $i8 $i8 $l8 $k8 $k8 $m8 $q8 $n8 $n8 $s8 $t8 $w8 $y8 $y8 $u8 $x8 >>>>> $z8 $f9 >>>>> $f9 $e9 $h9 $h9 $g9 $p9 $p9 $k9 $r9 $r9 $m9 $n9 $n9 $o9 $t9 $t9 $w9 >>>>> $v9 $u9 >>>>> $u9 $z9 $x9 >>>>> >>>>> Pharo 50041 gives... >>>>> $a1 $a2 $a3 $a4 $a5 $a6 $a7 $a8 $a9 $b1 $b2 $b3 $b4 $b5 $b6 $b7 $b8 >>>>> $b9 $c1 >>>>> $c2 $c3 $c4 $c5 $c6 $c7 $c8 $c9 $d1 $d2 $d3 $d4 $d5 $d6 $d7 $d8 $d9 >>>>> $e1 $e2 >>>>> $e3 $e4 $e5 $e6 $e7 $e8 $e9 $f1 $f2 $f3 $f4 $f5 $f6 $f7 $f8 $f9 $g1 >>>>> $g2 $g3 >>>>> $g4 $g5 $g6 $g7 $g8 $g9 $h1 $h2 $h3 $h4 $h5 $h6 $h7 $h8 $h9 $i1 $i2 >>>>> $i3 $i4 >>>>> $i5 $i6 $i7 $i8 $i9 $j1 $j2 $j3 $j4 $j5 $j6 $j7 $j8 $j9 $k1 $k2 $k3 >>>>> $k4 $k5 >>>>> $k6 $k7 $k8 $k9 $l1 $l2 $l3 $l4 $l5 $l6 $l7 $l8 $l9 $m1 $m2 $m3 $m4 >>>>> $m5 $m6 >>>>> $m7 $m8 $m9 $n1 $n2 $n3 $n4 $n5 $n6 $n7 $n8 $n9 $o1 $o2 $o3 $o4 $o5 >>>>> $o6 $o7 >>>>> $o8 $o9 $p1 $p2 $p3 $p4 $p5 $p6 $p7 $p8 $p9 $q1 $q2 $q3 $q4 $q5 $q6 >>>>> $q7 $q8 >>>>> $q9 $r1 $r2 $r3 $r4 $r5 $r6 $r7 $r8 $r9 $s1 $s2 $s3 $s4 $s5 $s6 $s7 >>>>> $s8 $s9 >>>>> $t1 $t2 $t3 $t4 $t5 $t6 $t7 $t8 $t9 $u1 $u2 $u3 $u4 $u5 $u6 $u7 $u8 >>>>> $u9 $v1 >>>>> $v2 $v3 $v4 $v5 $v6 $v7 $v8 $v9 $w1 $w2 $w3 $w4 $w5 $w6 $w7 $w8 $w9 >>>>> $x1 $x2 >>>>> $x3 $x4 $x5 $x6 $x7 $x8 $x9 $y1 $y2 $y3 $y4 $y5 $y6 $y7 $y8 $y9 $z1 >>>>> $z2 $z3 >>>>> $z4 $z5 $z6 $z7 $z8 $z9 >>>>> >>>>> (start your comparison at $b5) >>>>> >>>>> So in one axis Pharo has improved Transcript, but we didn't notice the >>>>> significance of the use case we lost. >>>>> >>>>> cheers -ben >>>>> >>>> >>>> Please take a good look at Cuis' Transcript and consider using it. >>>> >>>> By default, the display is updated immediately, but without calling >>>> Morphic, it can even work with no UI framework at all. It does updates >>>> faster than Squeak or Visualworks: >>>> >>>> Time millisecondsToRun: [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ Transcript show: >>>> 'x' ] ]. 763. >>>> >>>> But if you want minimum overhead without immediate feedback: >>>> >>>> Time millisecondsToRun: [ Transcript showOnDisplay: false. 1000 >>>> timesRepeat: [ Transcript show: 'x' ]. Transcript showOnDisplay: true ]. 1. >>>> "As fast as Pharo" >>>> >>>> It is also thread safe, and for Ben's example: >>>> >>>> Transcript clear. >>>> [ >>>> $a asciiValue to: $z asciiValue do: [ :c | >>>> [ 1 to: 9 do: [ :i | Transcript show: c asCharacter >>>> printString , i printString , ' ' ] ] forkAt: 40 >>>> ]. >>>> ] forkAt: 41 >>>> >>>> it gives the same result as Pharo. >>>> >>>> The fact that the updates are not bound to Morphic also means that it >>>> is possible to do #show: deep in Morphic logic, without causing infinite >>>> loops or recursions, and get immediate feedback. It has proved to be a >>>> useful aid in debugging Morphic code. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Juan Vuletich >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> best, >>> Eliot >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > > > -- > best, > Eliot > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

May 11, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Tudor Girba

Hi Clement, Thanks a lot for taking the time to describes these use cases. I was never exposed to the constraints of developing a VM and this type of descriptions is what we need to have a chance of producing tools that can help. I will think of them. Cheers, Doru On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:28 AM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-05-09 23:21 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > >> I do not think there are many people around here that would think that it >> is irrelevant if the Pharo VM can be developed in Pharo or not. Of course, >> it is important. >> >> So, the discussion should not go to challenge this direction, but rather >> in you telling us the use cases that you need supported. Please note that I >> did not say which exact code and how it should look like. I would be >> interested in learning about the use cases you have. I am quite certain >> that there are a number of ways to support them and when we work on GT it >> would be useful to have your use cases on our table. >> > > Well I need many lines to explain each point and there are many... I can > talk here about a few points. Then I will deal with Esteban for most of > them because it is difficult to explain without an interactive discussion. > > > Let me explain the use cases for the Transcript for example. The issues in > Pharo are: > - The Transcript does not show the stream as it is printed. > - The Transcript does not inherit from Stream and thus cannot print with > all the methods implemented in Stream. > - The Transcript does not allow the user to decorate the text with bold, > italic or colors. > > *Usecase 1: Debug printing methods:* In the VM you have debug printing > methods, for example, to print the call stack. These methods are used from > the VM simulator, to output the string in the Transcript, and in gdb, to > ouput the string in the commandline. The commandline (FileStream stdout in > Pharo) and the Squeak Transcript have the same behavior. In Pharo, the > Transcript does not inherit from Stream so you can't use the required > stream methods to print the debug printing method on the Transcript. In > addition, some printing methods print a lot of things and it is important > to show the stream as it is printed. > For this use-case, we want to keep the smallest difference between the > gdb/commadline behavior and the VM simulator/Transcript behavior. If you > implement advanced tooling in GT, you therefore need to implement gdb > extensions (and lldb extensions because some of us use lldb instead of gdb) > and maintain them. I don't think this is a solution. > > *Usecase 2: CCode generation debugging:* The CCodeGenerator or Slang > translator translates Slang code into C code. Sometimes there is a bug. To > debug, instead of generating the faulty C method into an external C file, > we print only the faulty C method in the Transcript. Again, we want to keep > the lowest difference between the real usecase (printing on the C file) and > the debug usecase (printing on the Transcript). In Squeak the FileStream > and the Transcript are both Stream, everything works as expected. In Pharo > the Transcript has not the expected behavior. Again the method can be long, > you can have to wait several seconds, so you'd like the transcript to show > the stream as you print it. > > *Usecase 3: VM simulation:* Simulating the VM is quite slow, especially > the machine code execution simulation. During the simulation process, the > UI is non interactive and shows only every while what the simulator is > doing in the Transcript. It is important as sometimes when debugging with a > test at each machine code instruction it could take several hours before > the UI is interactive again and you want to know what is going on. I don't > complain that it takes several hours because the alternatives usually > require days of debugging and we can launch the VM simulator overnight. In > Pharo this does not work as expected. > > *Usecase 4: In-image machine-code compilation:* While working in the JIT > compiler, sometimes the machine code generated for a bytecoded method is > faulty. A common way of debugging it is to print the machine code > instructions of the machine code version of the method in the Transcript. > It can take a while to print, so it is important to have the Transcript > showing the text as it prints. Then, the easiest way of debugging is to > look at the machine code and understand what is wrong. For this purpose, we > add text decoration to color jump addresses or the instructions where the > instruction pointer was when the VM crashed. Then, in squeak, we can easily > copy the decorated text to a workspace and generate a new version of the > machine code method and compare. In machine code, it is very difficult to > do analysis to have more information than just the decompiled text. We add > some information while simulating because we know for example the address > of specific trampolines, therefore we can print the name of the trampoline > when we see that its address is called. Again, sometimes we also have to > debug in gdb. In this case, we disassemble the machine code and compare it > to the one from in-image compilation, so both printed strings have to be > similar (similar text, same chariot returns). > > > > Another example is the complexity of the Pharo tools: > > While developing the VM, I have sometimes a VM partially working or with > some plugins not working. In the Squeak image, I can open a workspace on > top of this half-working VM and run do-its to see what is working and what > is not. In the Pharo image, I can't do anything. You can't open the > workspace without opening more advanced tools. I tried to open the > Playground, but the first time there was a bug with Traits (Playground use > Traits somehow and they were not working due to the new bytecode set not > being finished), when that first bug was fixed I could not open it because > it crashed simply the VM (I believe it tried to access an external file > such as playground-cache). Currently, the Pharo team is trying to build a > set of basic tools that have few dependencies to debug a partially working > system (that I think you will use to debug glamour while editing it, > because you cannot use the glamour inspector if glamour is not working). > That would solve this issue. > But in no way this point is something that I can do alone to be able to > develop the VM in Pharo. This has to be a community effort. And I am saying > that because I can't be blamed not to work on the VM in Pharo if to do so I > need to spend many months changing Pharo. > > > > An example that I believe is a problem in term of the community is the > following: > > I added with Eliot the support for the new bytecode set. Currently, the > Squeak image works with the new bytecode set but not the Pharo image. This > is because only the Traits are broken, but this is something I could hardly > figure out in the Pharo image because nothing is working as the GT tools > use Traits. In Squeak I believe there are very few users of Traits so > everything worked, and the test suite can reveal that the Traits are broken > easily. > > Currently, the VM process to me is to first make new features work in > Squeak, because it is simpler, and then make it work with Pharo, which is > more complex. In the last section I discussed how Traits were a problem > while implementing the new bytecode set. So what is the long term solution > for this issue ? > - Will we have a bootstrap process that creates first a Trait-free Kernel > and then build the Pharo Kernel out of it ? > - Do we forbid people to use Traits in the Pharo Kernel and does that make > sense to have Traits in Pharo in this case ? > - If we don't do anything, maybe the Traits are only a slight difference > with low impact in most cases and it's fine. But maybe there are many small > aspects like Traits, such as the Slots the way they were used in GT > recently (I don't blame GT or anything, it was just using features in the > system that created issues for me), and maybe we reached a point where the > complexity between the Pharo kernel and the Squeak kernel is big enough so > that a VM developer will first make Squeak works when introducing new > features and then deals with the complexity of Pharo ? > > So, what do we do ? I don't see any simple solution for this issue. And I > believe there are people around that see as the only solution for this > issue not to have the Pharo VM development process in Pharo because they > will see it as a threat to what they want to do with Pharo. > > > > Best Doru ! > > PS: I am still using the GTInspector with additional views on graphs > created with Roassal everyday and I still enjoy it. > > PS2: I am on vacation currently because I was getting crazy looking at > machine code all day long, so I may not answer as quick as usually during > the next week. > > > > Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:31 PM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-05-09 20:25 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 9/5/15 20:16, ClÃ©ment Bera a Ã©crit : >>>> >>>> This whole conversation here shows very well the point that I tried to >>>> explain to Stef last week. I'm sorry if the mail is a bit long but I think >>>> this discussion has to be done. >>>> >>>> My whole Smalltalk development life, I have used Pharo and was happy >>>> with it. Now I am also working in Cog's JIT compiler and for this specific >>>> project, I am working with Squeak. I don't work with Squeak because I don't >>>> like Pharo, I told you before, I have worked with Pharo on all my project >>>> before, enjoyed it and if it was possible I would use Pharo. I work with >>>> Squeak because the VM development tool and development process simply does >>>> *not* work in Pharo. This is not only because of VM tools working with the >>>> old Morphic not working anymore in Pharo or details like that, it is also >>>> due to deeper changes in Pharo. >>>> >>>> Stef believes it is important that Pharo is able to host development >>>> for its own VM. Therefore, I discussed with him and Esteban about a first >>>> list of points that are necessary for Pharo to support its VM development >>>> in Pharo, which includes this Transcript behavior. >>>> >>>> As of today, and I am honest here, I believe that what is required >>>> for Pharo to support the development process of its VM includes points >>>> which goes in the opposite direction than a few points in the Pharo >>>> roadmap, that people in the Pharo community will see as a regression, as >>>> "an intrusion from the Squeak philosophy into Pharo", or as forbidding the >>>> integration of features that breaks the VM development process. Therefore, >>>> I believe the Pharo community would disapprove to make such changes and I >>>> highly doubt that it is possible to have the development process of the >>>> Pharo VM in Pharo. >>>> >>>> I was thinking that only a few points would be a problem such as the >>>> increasing memory footprint of the Pharo image that is going to get worse >>>> with the sources that will be included in the image in the future, whereas >>>> a VM developer needs a small image (See previous threads in this mailing >>>> list where Hilaire complains about that for example). >>>> >>>> >>>> clement can I ask a simple question? >>>> why did I ask guille to work on minikernels and bootstrap for his phd >>>> instead on a topic where we can publish? >>>> - choice A: lack of idea >>>> - choice B: .... >>>> >>> >>> I have already stated that you believe that it is important that Pharo >>> is able to host development for its own VM. >>> >>> I am not against what you did and I am very excited with Guille's work. >>> >>> Pharo is community-driven, so I am not asking the question to you only, >>> but to the community. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, I didn't think that even simple points like the Transcript >>>> behavior discussed here, which looks like to me as a regression and is >>>> required for VM development, would be seen as an improvement by a non >>>> negligible part of the community. >>>> >>>> In this mailing-list, the whole Pharo community is present and can >>>> see this discussion. So the open questions are: >>>> >>>> *Do you want to have the development of the Pharo VM in Pharo, or do >>>> you want the development of the Pharo VM to remain in Squeak ?* >>>> *Do you think a system that is not good enough to handle its own VM >>>> development is a good system ?* >>>> >>>> I am not willing to go against the will of the community because I >>>> enjoy community-driven softwares. If the answer is that Pharo should be >>>> able to support its own VM development then as I started I will help >>>> Esteban and Stef to improve Pharo so that it can support its own VM >>>> development. Now, if the answer is that the development of the Pharo VM >>>> should remain in Squeak, I will continue developing the VM in Squeak. >>>> >>>> You are the Pharo community, you are the ones that make Pharo alive >>>> and kicking, so you tell me what you think we should do. >>>> >>>> Clement >>>> >>>> 2015-05-09 18:23 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>> >>>>> On May 9, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From my limited experience bug hunting, calling #changed: from a >>>>>> thread other than the UI thread is a source of evil. There are too many >>>>>> assumptions throughout the system that the UI is single threaded. Can >>>>>> anyone advise me that is not a proper belief? >>>>>> >>>>>> Then that implies that a Transcript implementation where #nextPut: >>>>>> direct calls #changed: >>>>>> is not appropriate for use with multi-threaded applications. In >>>>>> Pharo, #changed: is only called from #stepGlobal, which is called from >>>>>> doOneCycle:. (This came about as a last minute bug fix before Pharo 3 >>>>>> release and maybe could use some cleanup. >>>>>> >>>>>> Separating the UI from Transcript into its own viewer might be a >>>>>> good idea, but actually it would not solve Stef's case since his code would >>>>>> still be running in the UI thread -- unless the viewer ran in another >>>>>> thread, which would have its own complexities. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the point about efficiency is significant. The following >>>>>> example... >>>>>> Time millisecondsToRun: [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ Transcript show: >>>>>> 'x' ] ] >>>>>> on Squeak 4.5 --> 12749ms >>>>>> on Pharo 50029 --> 2ms >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As a point of comparison, on VW 8.0 --> 43817ms >>>>> and so you might guess, VW 8.0 outputs each 'x' immediately. >>>>> cheers -ben >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Way to go, Squeak! Actually this is disappointing. I'm rather >>>>> frustrated with Squeak's slow transcript, and was hoping that VW would >>>>> demonstrate it could be faster. Looking at the Squeak implementation I >>>>> only see an obvious 30% or so improvement via tuning. Looks like good >>>>> performance will take more work :-/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Eliot (phone) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

May 11, 2015

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/50043 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

May 11, 2015

[pharo-project/pharo-core] 83fa9b: 50043

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/5.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: 83fa9bd1367ccfac232639fed5d43be466f71d8a https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/83fa9bd1367ccfac232639fe… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2015-05-11 (Mon, 11 May 2015) Changed paths: M ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.package/ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.class/instance/symbolic versions/development_.st M ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.package/ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.class/instance/symbolic versions/stable_.st A ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.package/ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.class/instance/versions/version123_.st A ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.package/ConfigurationOfGTSpotter.class/instance/versions/version124_.st M ConfigurationOfGlamourCore.package/ConfigurationOfGlamourCore.class/instance/symbolic versions/development_.st M ConfigurationOfGlamourCore.package/ConfigurationOfGlamourCore.class/instance/symbolic versions/stable_.st A ConfigurationOfGlamourCore.package/ConfigurationOfGlamourCore.class/instance/versions/version313_.st M ConfigurationOfRubric.package/ConfigurationOfRubric.class/instance/symbolic versions/stable_.st M FreeType.package/FreeTypeCache.class/class/accessing/shutDown_.st M GT-Spotter.package/GTSpotterCategoryTitleBrick.class/instance/accessing/stepModel_.st M GT-Spotter.package/GTSpotterMorph.class/instance/initialization/initializeListeners.st M GT-SpotterExtensions-Core.package/extension/RPackage/instance/spotterActDefault.st A ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script50043.st R ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script651.st R ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update50042.st A ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update50043.st M ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st M Slot.package/LiteralVariable.class/instance/code generation/emitStore_.st M Slot.package/RelationSlot.class/instance/code generation/emitStore_.st M Slot.package/Slot.class/instance/code generation/emitStore_.st Log Message: ----------- 50043 ConfigurationOfRubric http://files.pharo.org/image/50/50043.zip

May 11, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Request]: Feed MetaRepoForXyz Configs Back to Projects

by Thierry Goubier

2015-05-11 14:32 GMT+02:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com>: > Can't we have configuration server pointing to the configurations of the > projects in the repos and getting all supported versions of pharo out of > them instead of having a dedicated repo for each pharo version? > This does not solve one of my problems with configurations: the fact that writing a version is complex (or require a versionner use and makes for very long configurations in the end). Baselines are a lot easier for that. They do not carry old versions in their code, making them less susceptible of having a huge number of lines of code to represent past versions (and rejected / truncated in future pharo releases like it happened with package version history). Thierry > > Uko > > > On 11 May 2015, at 14:06, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 2015-05-11 12:15 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > >> Yes this is important we should think modularly. >> > > This is one of my issues when dealing with configurations: the need to > copy them in many different places (the MetaRepo for each supported pharo > version, the Smalltalkhub repo for the project, github, etc....). > > Now, I write a configuration once and for all, and that configuration > delegates to baselines which are hosted in branch or version specific > repositories (one repo if github, multiple repositories if smalltalkhub). > Metacello/Git inspired workflow ;) > > Thierry > > >> >> >> Le 10/5/15 18:45, Sean P. DeNigris a Ã©crit : >> >> For example, Soup's config was updated to declare a stable version for >>> 4.0. >>> It was committed to MetaRepoForPharo40, but not to PharoExtras/Soup. It >>> was >>> confusing that loading from the config browser worked, but loading via >>> another config as a dependent project did not (since we use the canonical >>> repo in that use case). >>> >>> Specifically, I am asking that if we update a config, and it's not Pharo >>> xyz-specific (i.e. may break other platforms), that we commit back to the >>> canonical repo or notify the maintainer if we don't have repo access. >>> This >>> policy would obviously be especially easy for any project owned by the >>> Pharo >>> team. >>> >>> Thanks :) >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Cheers, >>> Sean >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://forum.world.st/Request-Feed-MetaRepoForXyz-Configs-Back-to-Projects-… >>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >>> Nabble.com. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

May 11, 2015

On Missing Class: Why not describe error?

by Sean P. DeNigris

Current implementation: MethodDeclaration>>#handleMissingBehavior "self error: ('Cannot install method in unexistent behavior {1}' format: {(behaviorName asString)})" (MissingClassError className: behaviorName asString) signal Any reason not to make it: MethodDeclaration>>#handleMissingBehavior (MissingClassError className: behaviorName asString) signal: 'Cannot install method in unexistent behavior', behaviorName asString ? It seems so obvious that I'm sure I must be missing something important! ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/On-Missing-Class-Why-not-describe-error-tp4825681.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

May 11, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Request]: Feed MetaRepoForXyz Configs Back to Projects

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Canât we have configuration server pointing to the configurations of the projects in the repos and getting all supported versions of pharo out of them instead of having a dedicated repo for each pharo version? Uko > On 11 May 2015, at 14:06, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2015-05-11 12:15 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>>: > Yes this is important we should think modularly. > > This is one of my issues when dealing with configurations: the need to copy them in many different places (the MetaRepo for each supported pharo version, the Smalltalkhub repo for the project, github, etc....). > > Now, I write a configuration once and for all, and that configuration delegates to baselines which are hosted in branch or version specific repositories (one repo if github, multiple repositories if smalltalkhub). Metacello/Git inspired workflow ;) > > Thierry > > > > Le 10/5/15 18:45, Sean P. DeNigris a Ã©crit : > > For example, Soup's config was updated to declare a stable version for 4.0. > It was committed to MetaRepoForPharo40, but not to PharoExtras/Soup. It was > confusing that loading from the config browser worked, but loading via > another config as a dependent project did not (since we use the canonical > repo in that use case). > > Specifically, I am asking that if we update a config, and it's not Pharo > xyz-specific (i.e. may break other platforms), that we commit back to the > canonical repo or notify the maintainer if we don't have repo access. This > policy would obviously be especially easy for any project owned by the Pharo > team. > > Thanks :) > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Request-Feed-MetaRepoForXyz-Configs-Back-to-Projects-… <http://forum.world.st/Request-Feed-MetaRepoForXyz-Configs-Back-to-Projects-…> > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >

May 11, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Request]: Feed MetaRepoForXyz Configs Back to Projects

by Thierry Goubier

2015-05-11 12:15 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > Yes this is important we should think modularly. > This is one of my issues when dealing with configurations: the need to copy them in many different places (the MetaRepo for each supported pharo version, the Smalltalkhub repo for the project, github, etc....). Now, I write a configuration once and for all, and that configuration delegates to baselines which are hosted in branch or version specific repositories (one repo if github, multiple repositories if smalltalkhub). Metacello/Git inspired workflow ;) Thierry > > > Le 10/5/15 18:45, Sean P. DeNigris a Ã©crit : > > For example, Soup's config was updated to declare a stable version for >> 4.0. >> It was committed to MetaRepoForPharo40, but not to PharoExtras/Soup. It >> was >> confusing that loading from the config browser worked, but loading via >> another config as a dependent project did not (since we use the canonical >> repo in that use case). >> >> Specifically, I am asking that if we update a config, and it's not Pharo >> xyz-specific (i.e. may break other platforms), that we commit back to the >> canonical repo or notify the maintainer if we don't have repo access. This >> policy would obviously be especially easy for any project owned by the >> Pharo >> team. >> >> Thanks :) >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Request-Feed-MetaRepoForXyz-Configs-Back-to-Projects-… >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> >> > >

May 11, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Nicolai Hess

About the GTools, I am sure you know it but, you can disable them and work with the good old Workspace and (Eye-)Inspector. BTW, how do Traits depend on the bytecode set? 2015-05-10 16:43 GMT+02:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: > > > 2015-05-10 10:37 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > >> >> On 10 May 2015, at 10:28, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-05-09 23:21 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >>> I do not think there are many people around here that would think that >>> it is irrelevant if the Pharo VM can be developed in Pharo or not. Of >>> course, it is important. >>> >>> So, the discussion should not go to challenge this direction, but rather >>> in you telling us the use cases that you need supported. Please note that I >>> did not say which exact code and how it should look like. I would be >>> interested in learning about the use cases you have. I am quite certain >>> that there are a number of ways to support them and when we work on GT it >>> would be useful to have your use cases on our table. >>> >> >> Well I need many lines to explain each point and there are many... I can >> talk here about a few points. Then I will deal with Esteban for most of >> them because it is difficult to explain without an interactive discussion. >> >> >> Let me explain the use cases for the Transcript for example. The issues >> in Pharo are: >> - The Transcript does not show the stream as it is printed. >> - The Transcript does not inherit from Stream and thus cannot print with >> all the methods implemented in Stream. >> - The Transcript does not allow the user to decorate the text with bold, >> italic or colors. >> >> >> sorryâ¦ you can do that with squeak's transcript? >> >> > Of course you can. > > Try short cut such as Cmd+ 6 or Cmd + 7. Else in the right click menu > those are the first 3 entries. And you can copy the decorated text from > Transcript to a Workspace. > I am not sure this was changed on purpose. (from my other posts about text and fonts and my bug reports) I got the impression some people did changes (for cleanup or other reasons) and maybe don't know what they changed or didn't not find the time to finish the cleanup: TextMorph righclick does not work anymore. Some text emphasis on FT fonts dont work. Some TextMorph halos don't work anymore. I don't think alls this was done on purpose. For the Transcript shortcuts for example, if we change ThreadSafeTranscript to use PluggableTextEditorMorph instead of PluggableTextMorph cmd+6/7/8/9/0 for changing emphasis/color works again. nicolai > >> *Usecase 1: Debug printing methods:* In the VM you have debug printing >> methods, for example, to print the call stack. These methods are used from >> the VM simulator, to output the string in the Transcript, and in gdb, to >> ouput the string in the commandline. The commandline (FileStream stdout in >> Pharo) and the Squeak Transcript have the same behavior. In Pharo, the >> Transcript does not inherit from Stream so you can't use the required >> stream methods to print the debug printing method on the Transcript. In >> addition, some printing methods print a lot of things and it is important >> to show the stream as it is printed. >> For this use-case, we want to keep the smallest difference between the >> gdb/commadline behavior and the VM simulator/Transcript behavior. If you >> implement advanced tooling in GT, you therefore need to implement gdb >> extensions (and lldb extensions because some of us use lldb instead of gdb) >> and maintain them. I don't think this is a solution. >> >> *Usecase 2: CCode generation debugging:* The CCodeGenerator or Slang >> translator translates Slang code into C code. Sometimes there is a bug. To >> debug, instead of generating the faulty C method into an external C file, >> we print only the faulty C method in the Transcript. Again, we want to keep >> the lowest difference between the real usecase (printing on the C file) and >> the debug usecase (printing on the Transcript). In Squeak the FileStream >> and the Transcript are both Stream, everything works as expected. In Pharo >> the Transcript has not the expected behavior. Again the method can be long, >> you can have to wait several seconds, so you'd like the transcript to show >> the stream as you print it. >> >> *Usecase 3: VM simulation:* Simulating the VM is quite slow, especially >> the machine code execution simulation. During the simulation process, the >> UI is non interactive and shows only every while what the simulator is >> doing in the Transcript. It is important as sometimes when debugging with a >> test at each machine code instruction it could take several hours before >> the UI is interactive again and you want to know what is going on. I don't >> complain that it takes several hours because the alternatives usually >> require days of debugging and we can launch the VM simulator overnight. In >> Pharo this does not work as expected. >> >> *Usecase 4: In-image machine-code compilation:* While working in the JIT >> compiler, sometimes the machine code generated for a bytecoded method is >> faulty. A common way of debugging it is to print the machine code >> instructions of the machine code version of the method in the Transcript. >> It can take a while to print, so it is important to have the Transcript >> showing the text as it prints. Then, the easiest way of debugging is to >> look at the machine code and understand what is wrong. For this purpose, we >> add text decoration to color jump addresses or the instructions where the >> instruction pointer was when the VM crashed. Then, in squeak, we can easily >> copy the decorated text to a workspace and generate a new version of the >> machine code method and compare. In machine code, it is very difficult to >> do analysis to have more information than just the decompiled text. We add >> some information while simulating because we know for example the address >> of specific trampolines, therefore we can print the name of the trampoline >> when we see that its address is called. Again, sometimes we also have to >> debug in gdb. In this case, we disassemble the machine code and compare it >> to the one from in-image compilation, so both printed strings have to be >> similar (similar text, same chariot returns). >> >> >> >> Another example is the complexity of the Pharo tools: >> >> While developing the VM, I have sometimes a VM partially working or with >> some plugins not working. In the Squeak image, I can open a workspace on >> top of this half-working VM and run do-its to see what is working and what >> is not. In the Pharo image, I can't do anything. You can't open the >> workspace without opening more advanced tools. I tried to open the >> Playground, but the first time there was a bug with Traits (Playground use >> Traits somehow and they were not working due to the new bytecode set not >> being finished), when that first bug was fixed I could not open it because >> it crashed simply the VM (I believe it tried to access an external file >> such as playground-cache). Currently, the Pharo team is trying to build a >> set of basic tools that have few dependencies to debug a partially working >> system (that I think you will use to debug glamour while editing it, >> because you cannot use the glamour inspector if glamour is not working). >> That would solve this issue. >> But in no way this point is something that I can do alone to be able to >> develop the VM in Pharo. This has to be a community effort. And I am saying >> that because I can't be blamed not to work on the VM in Pharo if to do so I >> need to spend many months changing Pharo. >> >> >> >> An example that I believe is a problem in term of the community is the >> following: >> >> I added with Eliot the support for the new bytecode set. Currently, the >> Squeak image works with the new bytecode set but not the Pharo image. This >> is because only the Traits are broken, but this is something I could hardly >> figure out in the Pharo image because nothing is working as the GT tools >> use Traits. In Squeak I believe there are very few users of Traits so >> everything worked, and the test suite can reveal that the Traits are broken >> easily. >> >> Currently, the VM process to me is to first make new features work in >> Squeak, because it is simpler, and then make it work with Pharo, which is >> more complex. In the last section I discussed how Traits were a problem >> while implementing the new bytecode set. So what is the long term solution >> for this issue ? >> - Will we have a bootstrap process that creates first a Trait-free Kernel >> and then build the Pharo Kernel out of it ? >> - Do we forbid people to use Traits in the Pharo Kernel and does that >> make sense to have Traits in Pharo in this case ? >> - If we don't do anything, maybe the Traits are only a slight difference >> with low impact in most cases and it's fine. But maybe there are many small >> aspects like Traits, such as the Slots the way they were used in GT >> recently (I don't blame GT or anything, it was just using features in the >> system that created issues for me), and maybe we reached a point where the >> complexity between the Pharo kernel and the Squeak kernel is big enough so >> that a VM developer will first make Squeak works when introducing new >> features and then deals with the complexity of Pharo ? >> >> So, what do we do ? I don't see any simple solution for this issue. And I >> believe there are people around that see as the only solution for this >> issue not to have the Pharo VM development process in Pharo because they >> will see it as a threat to what they want to do with Pharo. >> >> >> >> Best Doru ! >> >> PS: I am still using the GTInspector with additional views on graphs >> created with Roassal everyday and I still enjoy it. >> >> PS2: I am on vacation currently because I was getting crazy looking at >> machine code all day long, so I may not answer as quick as usually during >> the next week. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:31 PM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-05-09 20:25 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 9/5/15 20:16, ClÃ©ment Bera a Ã©crit : >>>>> >>>>> This whole conversation here shows very well the point that I tried to >>>>> explain to Stef last week. I'm sorry if the mail is a bit long but I think >>>>> this discussion has to be done. >>>>> >>>>> My whole Smalltalk development life, I have used Pharo and was happy >>>>> with it. Now I am also working in Cog's JIT compiler and for this specific >>>>> project, I am working with Squeak. I don't work with Squeak because I don't >>>>> like Pharo, I told you before, I have worked with Pharo on all my project >>>>> before, enjoyed it and if it was possible I would use Pharo. I work with >>>>> Squeak because the VM development tool and development process simply does >>>>> *not* work in Pharo. This is not only because of VM tools working with the >>>>> old Morphic not working anymore in Pharo or details like that, it is also >>>>> due to deeper changes in Pharo. >>>>> >>>>> Stef believes it is important that Pharo is able to host development >>>>> for its own VM. Therefore, I discussed with him and Esteban about a first >>>>> list of points that are necessary for Pharo to support its VM development >>>>> in Pharo, which includes this Transcript behavior. >>>>> >>>>> As of today, and I am honest here, I believe that what is required >>>>> for Pharo to support the development process of its VM includes points >>>>> which goes in the opposite direction than a few points in the Pharo >>>>> roadmap, that people in the Pharo community will see as a regression, as >>>>> "an intrusion from the Squeak philosophy into Pharo", or as forbidding the >>>>> integration of features that breaks the VM development process. Therefore, >>>>> I believe the Pharo community would disapprove to make such changes and I >>>>> highly doubt that it is possible to have the development process of the >>>>> Pharo VM in Pharo. >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking that only a few points would be a problem such as the >>>>> increasing memory footprint of the Pharo image that is going to get worse >>>>> with the sources that will be included in the image in the future, whereas >>>>> a VM developer needs a small image (See previous threads in this mailing >>>>> list where Hilaire complains about that for example). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> clement can I ask a simple question? >>>>> why did I ask guille to work on minikernels and bootstrap for his phd >>>>> instead on a topic where we can publish? >>>>> - choice A: lack of idea >>>>> - choice B: .... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have already stated that you believe that it is important that Pharo >>>> is able to host development for its own VM. >>>> >>>> I am not against what you did and I am very excited with Guille's work. >>>> >>>> Pharo is community-driven, so I am not asking the question to you only, >>>> but to the community. >>>> >>>> >>>> However, I didn't think that even simple points like the Transcript >>>> behavior discussed here, which looks like to me as a regression and is >>>> required for VM development, would be seen as an improvement by a non >>>> negligible part of the community. >>>> >>>> In this mailing-list, the whole Pharo community is present and can >>>> see this discussion. So the open questions are: >>>> >>>> *Do you want to have the development of the Pharo VM in Pharo, or do >>>> you want the development of the Pharo VM to remain in Squeak ?* >>>> *Do you think a system that is not good enough to handle its own VM >>>> development is a good system ?* >>>> >>>> I am not willing to go against the will of the community because I >>>> enjoy community-driven softwares. If the answer is that Pharo should be >>>> able to support its own VM development then as I started I will help >>>> Esteban and Stef to improve Pharo so that it can support its own VM >>>> development. Now, if the answer is that the development of the Pharo VM >>>> should remain in Squeak, I will continue developing the VM in Squeak. >>>> >>>> You are the Pharo community, you are the ones that make Pharo alive >>>> and kicking, so you tell me what you think we should do. >>>> >>>> Clement >>>> >>>> 2015-05-09 18:23 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>> >>>>> On May 9, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From my limited experience bug hunting, calling #changed: from a >>>>>> thread other than the UI thread is a source of evil. There are too many >>>>>> assumptions throughout the system that the UI is single threaded. Can >>>>>> anyone advise me that is not a proper belief? >>>>>> >>>>>> Then that implies that a Transcript implementation where #nextPut: >>>>>> direct calls #changed: >>>>>> is not appropriate for use with multi-threaded applications. In >>>>>> Pharo, #changed: is only called from #stepGlobal, which is called from >>>>>> doOneCycle:. (This came about as a last minute bug fix before Pharo 3 >>>>>> release and maybe could use some cleanup. >>>>>> >>>>>> Separating the UI from Transcript into its own viewer might be a >>>>>> good idea, but actually it would not solve Stef's case since his code would >>>>>> still be running in the UI thread -- unless the viewer ran in another >>>>>> thread, which would have its own complexities. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the point about efficiency is significant. The following >>>>>> example... >>>>>> Time millisecondsToRun: [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ Transcript show: >>>>>> 'x' ] ] >>>>>> on Squeak 4.5 --> 12749ms >>>>>> on Pharo 50029 --> 2ms >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As a point of comparison, on VW 8.0 --> 43817ms >>>>> and so you might guess, VW 8.0 outputs each 'x' immediately. >>>>> cheers -ben >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Way to go, Squeak! Actually this is disappointing. I'm rather >>>>> frustrated with Squeak's slow transcript, and was hoping that VW would >>>>> demonstrate it could be faster. Looking at the Squeak implementation I >>>>> only see an obvious 30% or so improvement via tuning. Looks like good >>>>> performance will take more work :-/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Eliot (phone) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> >> >> >> >

May 11, 2015