- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by Tudor Girba

Hi, > On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 25 Mar 2016, at 07:43, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yeah this is very well-known. Note that here we are talking about the pi B with Spur + the JIT, 2 years ago I remember needing 35 second on the pie A to open Nautilus on the stack vm while the Squeak UI was usable. >> >> The Pharo UI has been focusing on IDE features at the cost of performance, such as auto-completion, better RB integration, Nautilus, new debugging tools... None of the current tools (Nautilus, GTInspector, GTPlayground, ...) are fast enough for slower devices, some of them are barely fast enough for a laptop (for example at some point there was no auto-refresh on GTInspector because of performance). It's not clear if it's due to the new tools themselves as Morphic is drastically slower too on Pharo. >> >> The Squeak UI has been focusing on performance and stability. It is very convenient for slow devices but also for slow VM like for example the debug VM. >> >> The official answer to this problem is that Block/Brick will be faster so it will solve all this problems. We will see. > > yes, this is the âsemi-officialâ answer and thatâs an error. Yes ideally it will solve some problems (the ones related to Morphic), but current lack of performance on Pharo tools is not because of Morphic but because of some non optimised choices. > For example, months ago I got pissed because our current list implementation was not fast enough for our tools and thatâs why I made FastTable: because it was evident we needed a better design for it. It speeded the startup of Nautilus by an order of magnitude. This is a widget developed with Morphic, but with a not-naive approach, so is fast. > As lists, some others widgets (notably tree) could be optimisedâ¦ > But this will not be the solution of the problem either: we need to spend time on optimisation. Nautilus is not a good tool (we all know it has design problems all around) but with the time had improve and not using it is almost enjoyableâ¦ but for example, the new debugger (which Iâm not criticising as a tool, I like it a lot) makes me hurtâ¦ is slower than eclipse debugger and thatâs a lot to say. That is a good one :). There is an open issue with the blinking problem when you accept code which makes it appear slower than it actually is, but we are stuck with it and we could benefit from help. > Also new inspector: is good, but canât we optimise it? maybe we need to make some concession, but is the moment of doing it. The optimization we should do now is to replace the appearances of MorphTreeMorph with FastTable. This would imply that the Raw presentation would not longer have a tree (because it is not supported in FastTable). I would be very happy if we could do that. Do we agree on this? > Recently Iâm noticing a slowdown in Spotter: I believe is because one of his categories is refreshing to the network but Iâm not sure: this slowdown is not production acceptable, for me is a Show Stopper because it kills the usability of the tool (of a tool who is great, but it HAS to be fast, otherwise is useless). Could you be more specific about the Spotter problem that you see? Also, in the last couple of days Alex Syrel improved the speed of Spotter significantly. It is not yet integrated. It would be useful to get feedback on this because maybe we missed something. > Mea culpa: more than once I have not protested even knowing than solution X was â10% slower than the older one, but thatâs ok, we can live with itââ¦ guess what? once you accumulate enough of those 10% penalties, you have a barely usable system. > > We need to concentrate efforts on performance. There will not be magical solution: if we do not spend time on enhance tools for performance, they will be not good enough. > > Can I ask you guys to spend some time optimising tools, before we release Pharo 5? Remember, âFirst impressions countsâ! (we even have a category for it in FogBugz). It would indeed be useful to get more eyes spent on this. Cheers, Doru > > Esteban > > > >> >> >> 2016-03-25 1:15 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: >> >> > [Squeak 5 is] so *fast* (I have it running next to >> > Pharo, which is unusable slow as a GUI. Whereas Squeak 5 is zipping >> > along at Windows desktop speeds on the Pi (Model B). >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Fwd-Squeak-5-on-Raspberry-Pi-tp4886416.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot be done."

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fwd: Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by Stephan Eggermont

On 25-03-16 11:49, Nicolai Hess wrote: > Morphic drasticallly slower ? I would expect morphic code is mostly the > same in pharo and squeak. If pharo is slower, this is a good starting > point for optimising. Can you gives some hints? I do not have the impression that morphic is so much slower. We had/have a problem of too many announcements being send and too many redraws happening. Stephan

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 25 Mar 2016, at 11:50, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > But isn't the old list implementation (mostly) the same that is used in squeak (and feels faster there?) ? yes, but we use it very differently :) we add tons and tons of functionality on top of it, so we made, Nautilus for example, slower. Is not a problem of the list: is that we are/were using it differently, and in a very different way of his first intention (take a pluggable list, add 1k strings: worksâ¦ add 1k iconsâ¦ works worst, but worksâ¦ add 1k buttons instead those iconsâ¦ and sufferâ¦ :P). Esteban

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by Nicolai Hess

2016-03-25 9:45 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > > On 25 Mar 2016, at 07:43, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah this is very well-known. Note that here we are talking about the pi B > with Spur + the JIT, 2 years ago I remember needing 35 second on the pie A > to open Nautilus on the stack vm while the Squeak UI was usable. > > The Pharo UI has been focusing on IDE features at the cost of performance, > such as auto-completion, better RB integration, Nautilus, new debugging > tools... None of the current tools (Nautilus, GTInspector, GTPlayground, > ...) are fast enough for slower devices, some of them are barely fast > enough for a laptop (for example at some point there was no auto-refresh on > GTInspector because of performance). It's not clear if it's due to the new > tools themselves as Morphic is drastically slower too on Pharo. > > The Squeak UI has been focusing on performance and stability. It is very > convenient for slow devices but also for slow VM like for example the debug > VM. > > The official answer to this problem is that Block/Brick will be faster so > it will solve all this problems. We will see. > > > yes, this is the âsemi-officialâ answer and thatâs an error. Yes ideally > it will solve some problems (the ones related to Morphic), but current lack > of performance on Pharo tools is not because of Morphic but because of some > non optimised choices. > For example, months ago I got pissed because our current list > implementation was not fast enough for our tools and thatâs why I made > FastTable: > But isn't the old list implementation (mostly) the same that is used in squeak (and feels faster there?) ? > because it was evident we needed a better design for it. It speeded the > startup of Nautilus by an order of magnitude. This is a widget developed > with Morphic, but with a not-naive approach, so is fast. > As lists, some others widgets (notably tree) could be optimisedâ¦ > But this will not be the solution of the problem either: we need to spend > time on optimisation. Nautilus is not a good tool (we all know it has > design problems all around) but with the time had improve and not using it > is almost enjoyableâ¦ but for example, the new debugger (which Iâm not > criticising as a tool, I like it a lot) makes me hurtâ¦ is slower than > eclipse debugger and thatâs a lot to say. Also new inspector: is good, but > canât we optimise it? maybe we need to make some concession, but is the > moment of doing it. > Recently Iâm noticing a slowdown in Spotter: I believe is because one of > his categories is refreshing to the network but Iâm not sure: this slowdown > is not production acceptable, for me is a Show Stopper because it kills the > usability of the tool (of a tool who is great, but it HAS to be fast, > otherwise is useless). > > Mea culpa: more than once I have not protested even knowing than solution > X was â10% slower than the older one, but thatâs ok, we can live with itââ¦ > guess what? once you accumulate enough of those 10% penalties, you have a > barely usable system. > > We need to concentrate efforts on performance. There will not be magical > solution: if we do not spend time on enhance tools for performance, they > will be not good enough. > > Can I ask you guys to spend some time optimising tools, before we release > Pharo 5? Remember, âFirst impressions countsâ! (we even have a category for > it in FogBugz). > > Esteban > > > > > > 2016-03-25 1:15 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > >> >> > [Squeak 5 is] so *fast* (I have it running next to >> > Pharo, which is unusable slow as a GUI. Whereas Squeak 5 is zipping >> > along at Windows desktop speeds on the Pi (Model B). >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Fwd-Squeak-5-on-Raspberry-Pi-tp4886416.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com <http://nabble.com>. >> >> > >

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fwd: Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by Nicolai Hess

2016-03-25 7:43 GMT+01:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: > Yeah this is very well-known. Note that here we are talking about the pi B > with Spur + the JIT, 2 years ago I remember needing 35 second on the pie A > to open Nautilus on the stack vm while the Squeak UI was usable. > > The Pharo UI has been focusing on IDE features at the cost of performance, > such as auto-completion, better RB integration, Nautilus, new debugging > tools... None of the current tools (Nautilus, GTInspector, GTPlayground, > ...) are fast enough for slower devices, some of them are barely fast > enough for a laptop (for example at some point there was no auto-refresh on > GTInspector because of performance). It's not clear if it's due to the new > tools themselves as Morphic is drastically slower too on Pharo. > > Morphic drasticallly slower ? I would expect morphic code is mostly the same in pharo and squeak. If pharo is slower, this is a good starting point for optimising. Can you gives some hints? > The Squeak UI has been focusing on performance and stability. It is very > convenient for slow devices but also for slow VM like for example the debug > VM. > > The official answer to this problem is that Block/Brick will be faster so > it will solve all this problems. We will see. > > > 2016-03-25 1:15 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > >> >> > [Squeak 5 is] so *fast* (I have it running next to >> > Pharo, which is unusable slow as a GUI. Whereas Squeak 5 is zipping >> > along at Windows desktop speeds on the Pi (Model B). >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Fwd-Squeak-5-on-Raspberry-Pi-tp4886416.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> >

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by phil＠highoctane.be

You made my day. It is true the Pharo feels slow, even of a powerful machine [Core i7 @ 4.4Ghz] (e.g. vs Visual Studio, PhpStorm, ... which aren't little beasts). It is particularly frustrating when having to work with BIG FONTS like I do and inside a Linux VM. Squeak is indeed super zippy by comparison. That's frustrating. Phil On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 25 Mar 2016, at 09:45, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > had improve and not using it is almost enjoyableâ¦ > > > I meant â.. had improve and NOW using it is almost enjoyableââ¦ Freud could > say a lot of things about that lapsus :P > >

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 25 Mar 2016, at 09:45, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > had improve and not using it is almost enjoyableâ¦ I meant â.. had improve and NOW using it is almost enjoyableââ¦ Freud could say a lot of things about that lapsus :P

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] New version of Ghost

by Christophe Demarey

Good job Denis! > Le 24 mars 2016 Ã 17:48, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > Hello. > > I finished new version of Ghost: > Abstract proxy classes uses Ghost name instead of Proxy: there are GHObjectGhost and GHClassGhost. > GHProxyHandler renamed to GHGhostBehaviour. Concrete ghosts should implement #ghostBehaviour instead of #proxyHandler. Why did you rename these classes? I find the new names obscure and they do not provide a clue of what is the purpose of the class. Old names were clear and easily understandable. > New kind of proxies: > GHObjectVirus. It is special kind of GHClassProxy. It infects real object to intercept it messages. From meta level infected object looks like healthy object which means that meta messages are executed by infected object itself. As class virus looks like real victim Same remark here. The name is fun but it does not give any clue on the purpose of the class. Why not use GHMessageInterceptor? Sorry to bother you but names are really important. Christophe

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 25 Mar 2016, at 07:43, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah this is very well-known. Note that here we are talking about the pi B with Spur + the JIT, 2 years ago I remember needing 35 second on the pie A to open Nautilus on the stack vm while the Squeak UI was usable. > > The Pharo UI has been focusing on IDE features at the cost of performance, such as auto-completion, better RB integration, Nautilus, new debugging tools... None of the current tools (Nautilus, GTInspector, GTPlayground, ...) are fast enough for slower devices, some of them are barely fast enough for a laptop (for example at some point there was no auto-refresh on GTInspector because of performance). It's not clear if it's due to the new tools themselves as Morphic is drastically slower too on Pharo. > > The Squeak UI has been focusing on performance and stability. It is very convenient for slow devices but also for slow VM like for example the debug VM. > > The official answer to this problem is that Block/Brick will be faster so it will solve all this problems. We will see. yes, this is the âsemi-officialâ answer and thatâs an error. Yes ideally it will solve some problems (the ones related to Morphic), but current lack of performance on Pharo tools is not because of Morphic but because of some non optimised choices. For example, months ago I got pissed because our current list implementation was not fast enough for our tools and thatâs why I made FastTable: because it was evident we needed a better design for it. It speeded the startup of Nautilus by an order of magnitude. This is a widget developed with Morphic, but with a not-naive approach, so is fast. As lists, some others widgets (notably tree) could be optimisedâ¦ But this will not be the solution of the problem either: we need to spend time on optimisation. Nautilus is not a good tool (we all know it has design problems all around) but with the time had improve and not using it is almost enjoyableâ¦ but for example, the new debugger (which Iâm not criticising as a tool, I like it a lot) makes me hurtâ¦ is slower than eclipse debugger and thatâs a lot to say. Also new inspector: is good, but canât we optimise it? maybe we need to make some concession, but is the moment of doing it. Recently Iâm noticing a slowdown in Spotter: I believe is because one of his categories is refreshing to the network but Iâm not sure: this slowdown is not production acceptable, for me is a Show Stopper because it kills the usability of the tool (of a tool who is great, but it HAS to be fast, otherwise is useless). Mea culpa: more than once I have not protested even knowing than solution X was â10% slower than the older one, but thatâs ok, we can live with itââ¦ guess what? once you accumulate enough of those 10% penalties, you have a barely usable system. We need to concentrate efforts on performance. There will not be magical solution: if we do not spend time on enhance tools for performance, they will be not good enough. Can I ask you guys to spend some time optimising tools, before we release Pharo 5? Remember, âFirst impressions countsâ! (we even have a category for it in FogBugz). Esteban > > > 2016-03-25 1:15 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>>: > > > [Squeak 5 is] so *fast* (I have it running next to > > Pharo, which is unusable slow as a GUI. Whereas Squeak 5 is zipping > > along at Windows desktop speeds on the Pi (Model B). > > > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Fwd-Squeak-5-on-Raspberry-Pi-tp4886416.html <http://forum.world.st/Fwd-Squeak-5-on-Raspberry-Pi-tp4886416.html> > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

March 25, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fwd: Squeak 5 on Raspberry Pi

by ClÃ©ment Bera

Yeah this is very well-known. Note that here we are talking about the pi B with Spur + the JIT, 2 years ago I remember needing 35 second on the pie A to open Nautilus on the stack vm while the Squeak UI was usable. The Pharo UI has been focusing on IDE features at the cost of performance, such as auto-completion, better RB integration, Nautilus, new debugging tools... None of the current tools (Nautilus, GTInspector, GTPlayground, ...) are fast enough for slower devices, some of them are barely fast enough for a laptop (for example at some point there was no auto-refresh on GTInspector because of performance). It's not clear if it's due to the new tools themselves as Morphic is drastically slower too on Pharo. The Squeak UI has been focusing on performance and stability. It is very convenient for slow devices but also for slow VM like for example the debug VM. The official answer to this problem is that Block/Brick will be faster so it will solve all this problems. We will see. 2016-03-25 1:15 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > > > [Squeak 5 is] so *fast* (I have it running next to > > Pharo, which is unusable slow as a GUI. Whereas Squeak 5 is zipping > > along at Windows desktop speeds on the Pi (Model B). > > > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Fwd-Squeak-5-on-Raspberry-Pi-tp4886416.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >

March 25, 2016