Results for VisualAge (just FYI): | count | count := 0. [1 to: 10000000 do: [:i | count :=count + 1]] timeToRun. "151702" | count | count := 0. [10000000 timesRepeat: [count := count + 1]] timeToRun. "139971" (results are in microseconds) So maybe there's a case for inlining #timesRepeat: (or making a clear comment that it is much slower in Pharo) Just my $0:02 -- Cheers, Peter On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Marcus Denker <denker@acm.org> wrote:
On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Cédrick Béler wrote:
Hi,
I noticed quite a difference between the two method who "looks" the same to me. Is it normal ?
Normal. to:do: is lnlined (compiled as jumps in the bytecode), whereas timesRepeat: is a message send with a closure activation.
Marcus
fun is the difference between:
(1 to : 10000) do: and 1 to: 10000 do:
one is compiled to jumps, the other not and in addition creates a temp collection.
Marcus
I use a rc image (haven't tested in squeak). And it's the same on windows and linux.
count := 0. [1 to: 10000000 do: [:i | count :=count + 1]] timeToRun." 677" count := 0. [10000000 timesRepeat: [count := count + 1]] timeToRun" 2571"
If not normal, I'll open a issue.
Thanks
-- Cédrick _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project