[Pharo-project] TimeProfiler and primitives
Hi guys. I remember some improvements made to TimeProfiler regarding primitives. I am profiling something which does a lot of primitive calls, and the TimeProfiler is quite dumb. It shows almost everything as #finalizationProcess but I know that the time is not actually spent there. I remember someone that fixed this (maybe Eliot telling me that on Teleplace?). Anyway, any help is appreciated. Thanks, -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
Do you have the same issue if you use the Qwaq profiler here: Www.squeaksource.com/SystemProfilerPharo.html ? -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/TimeProfiler-and-primitives-tp4654714p4654715.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Paul DeBruicker <pdebruic@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have the same issue if you use the Qwaq profiler here:
Www.squeaksource.com/SystemProfilerPharo.html
That was what I was looking for!!! Indeed, much better results :) Thanks Paul. Now I wonder, can we merge the changes from this SystemProfiler into the standard TimeProfiler? I would love to have only (correcy) onw. Maybe you can help with this task? ;)
?
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/TimeProfiler-and-primitives-tp4654714p4654715.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Paul DeBruicker <pdebruic@gmail.com> wrote: Do you have the same issue if you use the Qwaq profiler here:
Www.squeaksource.com/SystemProfilerPharo.html
That was what I was looking for!!! Indeed, much better results :) Thanks Paul. Now I wonder, can we merge the changes from this SystemProfiler into the standard TimeProfiler? I would love to have only (correcy) onw. Maybe you can help with this task? ;)
Make sure to check the license first.. everything Qwaq is GPL, which is quite a strange license in the context of Smalltalk... Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
On 10 November 2012 13:10, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Paul DeBruicker <pdebruic@gmail.com> wrote: Do you have the same issue if you use the Qwaq profiler here:
Www.squeaksource.com/SystemProfilerPharo.html
That was what I was looking for!!! Indeed, much better results :) Thanks Paul. Now I wonder, can we merge the changes from this SystemProfiler into the standard TimeProfiler? I would love to have only (correcy) onw. Maybe you can help with this task? ;)
Make sure to check the license first.. everything Qwaq is GPL, which is quite a strange license in the context of Smalltalk...
means copy-pasting the code will make you illegal.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
That was what I was looking for!!! Indeed, much better results :) Thanks Paul. Now I wonder, can we merge the changes from this SystemProfiler into the standard TimeProfiler? I would love to have only (correcy) onw. Maybe you can help with this task? ;)
Make sure to check the license first.. everything Qwaq is GPL, which is quite a strange license in the context of Smalltalk...
means copy-pasting the code will make you illegal.
far worse than that: all the code that is loaded and is in the same image will be GPL. So this can only work if you do not respect GPL. For example, I could imagine that somebody take qwak code and build a company around it but does not say anything and never ever publish code then they would not be forced to release the code they develop subsequently under GPL (because it has to be GPL) but they would be violating the license. So simply thinking that Qwak code does not exist is the best for Pharo. Because Pharo does not want to be a private closed project violating GPL license. We respect it too much for doing that. Stef
On 11/11/12 11:31 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So this can only work if you do not respect GPL. For example, I could imagine that somebody take qwak code and build a company around it but does not say anything and never ever publish code then they would not be forced to release the code they develop subsequently under GPL (because it has to be GPL) but they would be violating the license.
IIUC, whether or not they'd be violating GPL depends on what you mean by "build a company around it". It is entirely okay with GPL, for a company to use (modify & extend) GPL code internally, and never publishes any changes. However, if that company wanted to release a product, using GPL code, then they would be obligated to release their code changes as well. And, that release of code must use GPL. What's not clear to me is how this translates into the "cloud"-era. If someone provides qwaq as a cloud service, are they just using GPL code internally?
So simply thinking that Qwak code does not exist is the best for Pharo.
Yes, good idea. However, I believe it is allowed that someone may describe how a piece of GPL'ed code works, so it can be re-implemented by others.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Yanni Chiu wrote:
On 11/11/12 11:31 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So this can only work if you do not respect GPL. For example, I could imagine that somebody take qwak code and build a company around it but does not say anything and never ever publish code then they would not be forced to release the code they develop subsequently under GPL (because it has to be GPL) but they would be violating the license.
IIUC, whether or not they'd be violating GPL depends on what you mean by "build a company around it".
It is entirely okay with GPL, for a company to use (modify & extend) GPL code internally, and never publishes any changes. However, if that company wanted to release a product, using GPL code, then they would be obligated to release their code changes as well. And, that release of code must use GPL.
I was implying that indeed people do a product based on it.
What's not clear to me is how this translates into the "cloud"-era. If someone provides qwaq as a cloud service, are they just using GPL code internally?
So simply thinking that Qwak code does not exist is the best for Pharo.
Yes, good idea. However, I believe it is allowed that someone may describe how a piece of GPL'ed code works, so it can be re-implemented by others.
I do not know that part of GPL. Stef
On Nov 11, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Yanni Chiu wrote:
On 11/11/12 11:31 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So this can only work if you do not respect GPL. For example, I could imagine that somebody take qwak code and build a company around it but does not say anything and never ever publish code then they would not be forced to release the code they develop subsequently under GPL (because it has to be GPL) but they would be violating the license.
IIUC, whether or not they'd be violating GPL depends on what you mean by "build a company around it".
It is entirely okay with GPL, for a company to use (modify & extend) GPL code internally, and never publishes any changes. However, if that company wanted to release a product, using GPL code, then they would be obligated to release their code changes as well. And, that release of code must use GPL.
I was implying that indeed people do a product based on it.
The viral aspect of the GPL are bound to distribution. A web service thus can use modified GPL sofware and never has to provide the sources. Only ff you distribute the binary (or source), you have to provide the sources under the terms of the GPL. When mixing licenses, the parts under GPL have to stay GPL and the others (e.g. MIT) stay MIT. But the GPL's virality leaks into the MIT parts in some way: It forces all the source to be made available when you distribute a modified version, the GPLed parts and even those under MIT.
What's not clear to me is how this translates into the "cloud"-era. If someone provides qwaq as a cloud service, are they just using GPL code internally?
So simply thinking that Qwak code does not exist is the best for Pharo.
Yes, good idea. However, I believe it is allowed that someone may describe how a piece of GPL'ed code works, so it can be re-implemented by others.
I do not know that part of GPL.
The GPL as a license is a about copyright. Copyright is for expressions of text (or other media), not for the ideas behind. Of course, one of the reasons why one picks a simple license is to not have exactly these discussions. They are useless, destroy energy and bring nothing. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
participants (6)
-
Igor Stasenko -
Marcus Denker -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Paul DeBruicker -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Yanni Chiu