- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Configuration loading 1.4 vs 2.0

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-09, at 15:12, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think instVar cacheFileNames is never initialized and hence, it follows > > cacheFileNames == true ifFalse: [ ^ self loadAllFileNames ]. where is that? > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On 2012-09-09, at 14:24, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess you tried both with an empty package-cache, right? >> >> yes, not much of a diff...

Sept. 9, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Configuration loading 1.4 vs 2.0

by Mariano Martinez Peck

I think instVar cacheFileNames is never initialized and hence, it follows cacheFileNames == true ifFalse: [ ^ self loadAllFileNames ]. On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > On 2012-09-09, at 14:24, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I guess you tried both with an empty package-cache, right? > > yes, not much of a diff... > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Sept. 9, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Configuration loading 1.4 vs 2.0

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-09, at 14:24, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I guess you tried both with an empty package-cache, right? yes, not much of a diff...

Sept. 9, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Configuration loading 1.4 vs 2.0

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-09, at 14:14, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think it has to do with the change in #readableFileNames Indeed it metacello does this big mistake of gathering all the local gofer-references first. But that would mean on an empty package-cache it should load the same way, but even then it's still considerably slower in 2.0 There's also an additional overhead by the announcement system for recategorizing methods..

Sept. 9, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] RE : RE : RE : NewClassOrganizer

by Nicolas Cellier

If you want a cleaner design, just remove protocols ;) Nicolas 2012/9/9 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>: > > On 2012-09-09, at 13:55, Philippe Back <philippe.back(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 300Megs with Eclipse. With the base install you mean. > indeed :) >> We do hit triple that over here... SOA/JEE and some CLM plugins involved. >> >> Ah RAM is cheap. The problem is that all programs think they need it all >> these days. > > true, but my machine has 8GB, we'll have soon 16 by default + SSA so you > don't care that much about swapping out anymore either. > > Now look at poor little Pharo :) so there is plenty of space to wasted > in favor of a clean design :) >

Sept. 9, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] RE : Re: RE : RE : NewClassOrganizer

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-09, at 13:58, Philippe Back <philippe.back(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Cami, > > A general ordering of standard (so to speak) protocols would be nice indeed. > > But what about pretty local protocols? Like things in PetitParser for > example. Alphabetical would be a nuisance. I'd prefer something like tags on methods to properly denote this information. But true, ordering might help for readability... I am just no big fan of all this implicit stuff, that's why I say this goes into the UI where you properly tell the user what the ordering means (by say bars telling "private" or so...) anyways, with the new class organizer it should be pretty easy to switch between different kinds of representation since we will use real collections and not some half-dict-half-array breed.

Sept. 9, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] RE : RE : RE : NewClassOrganizer

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-09, at 13:55, Philippe Back <philippe.back(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 300Megs with Eclipse. With the base install you mean. indeed :) > We do hit triple that over here... SOA/JEE and some CLM plugins involved. > > Ah RAM is cheap. The problem is that all programs think they need it all > these days. true, but my machine has 8GB, we'll have soon 16 by default + SSA so you don't care that much about swapping out anymore either. Now look at poor little Pharo :) so there is plenty of space to wasted in favor of a clean design :)

Sept. 9, 2012

[Pharo-project] RE : Re: RE : RE : NewClassOrganizer

by Philippe Back

Cami, A general ordering of standard (so to speak) protocols would be nice indeed. But what about pretty local protocols? Like things in PetitParser for example. Alphabetical would be a nuisance. Philippe Back Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : On 2012-09-09, at 13:39, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> wrote: > You are a very directive kind of person, when it comes to thoses things... > If a user want it classified his way, who am I to change his ordering ? You got me wrong there, I am talking about a user defined / preference dict. It's like choosing your preferred font. Of course this solution is very simplistic only holding up to a single global order. The other solution might be to simply replace the Dictionary in the new class organizer by something like an OrderedKeyDictionary plus a Nautilus plugin, DONE If you want my very personal opinion, I think it's not really helpful to have anything but alphabetic sorting. I use the new shortcuts in 2.0 to simply jump to the category I want, that saves me some couple of 100ms visual perception time on each selection. > No, the solution isn't yet another level of ill-defined "pattern matching" to try to get that result. Smalltalk has, from the beginning, been able to show good practice by letting it's developpers set well though-out conventions themselves, and by giving them the freedom to do so (maybe not consciously in some cases, but still). Regressing on that isn't good. Well, I personnaly will rebuilt yet another RPackage like system to get what I need, obviously. I don't see any problem there. > By the way, have you noticed that on some systems, Pharo 2.0 starts to feel slow to use ? in regard to what? I would say if you do a DeltaSlowness / AddedFeaturesIn2.0 you end up with something close to 0...

Sept. 9, 2012

[Pharo-project] RE : RE : RE : NewClassOrganizer

by Philippe Back

300Megs with Eclipse. With the base install you mean. We do hit triple that over here... SOA/JEE and some CLM plugins involved. Ah RAM is cheap. The problem is that all programs think they need it all these days. Philippe Back GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> a Ã©crit : WzYou are a very directive kind of person, when it comes to thoses things... If a user want it classified his way, who am I to change his ordering ? No, the solution isn't yet another level of ill-defined "pattern matching" to try to get that result. Smalltalk has, from the beginning, been able to show good practice by letting it's developpers set well though-out conventions themselves, and by giving them the freedom to do so (maybe not consciously in some cases, but still). Regressing on that isn't good. Well, I personnaly will rebuilt yet another RPackage like system to get what I need, obviously. By the way, have you noticed that on some systems, Pharo 2.0 starts to feel slow to use ? Thierry ________________________________________ De : pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [ pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de Camillo Bruni [ camillobruni(a)gmail.com] Date d'envoi : dimanche 9 septembre 2012 13:25 Ã : Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RE : NewClassOrganizer On 2012-09-09, at 13:18, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> wrote: > > ________________________________________ > De : pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [ pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de Camillo Bruni [ camillobruni(a)gmail.com] > Date d'envoi : dimanche 9 septembre 2012 12:48 > Ã : Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] NewClassOrganizer > >> Ordering of protocols should happen in the Browser not in the model. > > Hum, it looks like to save a few lines there, it's gonna cost a few thousands lines and caching complexity in the Browser. I doubt that you'll need any caching there, for any given protocol finding the proper methods should be O(1), so the only thing that's left is ordering the protocol. - define a global ordered collection of predefined categories which will be sorted first - sort the rest alphabetically... so that's an O(n) lookup overhead for the all the entries. given that there is hardly any class defining 100 protocols you can redo that calculation as often as you want... >> Protocols are simple dictionary entries, the old implementation simply >> did not want to use dicts for performance / space reasons. > >> I doubt that we will add explicit ordering to protocols... > > Then the new implementation looks worse than the previous one, from a GUI point of view in addition to the performance / space ones. not at all... the old categories are a big mess without any documentation => nobody will every maintain that and as mentioned above, the only trade-off is space, which honestly you cannot complain about unless we hit something like a 300MB boundary like Eclipse...

Sept. 9, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] RE : RE : NewClassOrganizer

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-09, at 13:39, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> wrote: > You are a very directive kind of person, when it comes to thoses things... > If a user want it classified his way, who am I to change his ordering ? You got me wrong there, I am talking about a user defined / preference dict. It's like choosing your preferred font. Of course this solution is very simplistic only holding up to a single global order. The other solution might be to simply replace the Dictionary in the new class organizer by something like an OrderedKeyDictionary plus a Nautilus plugin, DONE If you want my very personal opinion, I think it's not really helpful to have anything but alphabetic sorting. I use the new shortcuts in 2.0 to simply jump to the category I want, that saves me some couple of 100ms visual perception time on each selection. > No, the solution isn't yet another level of ill-defined "pattern matching" to try to get that result. Smalltalk has, from the beginning, been able to show good practice by letting it's developpers set well though-out conventions themselves, and by giving them the freedom to do so (maybe not consciously in some cases, but still). Regressing on that isn't good. Well, I personnaly will rebuilt yet another RPackage like system to get what I need, obviously. I don't see any problem there. > By the way, have you noticed that on some systems, Pharo 2.0 starts to feel slow to use ? in regard to what? I would say if you do a DeltaSlowness / AddedFeaturesIn2.0 you end up with something close to 0...

Sept. 9, 2012