[Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org> [ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun. On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
As I mentioned on squeak-dev... With the StandardToolSet I get 300ms or less... Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou@gmail.com> To: "Pharo Development" <pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; "David Röthlisberger" <roethlis@iam.unibe.ch> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
If that helps, I get 7316ms !! Pharo0.1 Latest update: #10373 On Windows XP, SP3 Dual Core, 3GHz, 2Gb RAM Vanilla Pharo image with FFI & ODBC packages loaded. ----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Blog: lamneth.wordpress.com A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein) ________________________________ From: Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:00 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean)) As I mentioned on squeak-dev... With the StandardToolSet I get 300ms or less... Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou@gmail.com> To: "Pharo Development" <pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; "David Röthlisberger" <roethlis@iam.unibe.ch> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ 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 __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
Ouch! Wonder why... (2.8 Quad core here, Vista 64bit SP1, 4GB ram, Pharo-core-10371, Arial 10 fonts via FreeType *StandardToolSet*, image backgound (clownfish)). 260ms is best time recorded. Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: Benoit St-Jean To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean)) If that helps, I get 7316ms !! Pharo0.1 Latest update: #10373 On Windows XP, SP3 Dual Core, 3GHz, 2Gb RAM Vanilla Pharo image with FFI & ODBC packages loaded. ----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Blog: lamneth.wordpress.com A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:00 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean)) As I mentioned on squeak-dev... With the StandardToolSet I get 300ms or less... Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou@gmail.com> To: "Pharo Development" <pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr>; "David Röthlisberger" <roethlis@iam.unibe.ch> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Dumb question: what part of ToolSet askForDefault makes the actual change to the default? My real question is what would I do to script setting the standard tool set as the default? Bill ________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Gary Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:30 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean)) Ouch! Wonder why... (2.8 Quad core here, Vista 64bit SP1, 4GB ram, Pharo-core-10371, Arial 10 fonts via FreeType *StandardToolSet*, image backgound (clownfish)). 260ms is best time recorded. Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: Benoit St-Jean<mailto:bstjean@yahoo.com> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean)) If that helps, I get 7316ms !! Pharo0.1 Latest update: #10373 On Windows XP, SP3 Dual Core, 3GHz, 2Gb RAM Vanilla Pharo image with FFI & ODBC packages loaded. ----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Blog: lamneth.wordpress.com A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein) ________________________________ From: Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com<mailto:gazzaguru2@btinternet.com>> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:00 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean)) As I mentioned on squeak-dev... With the StandardToolSet I get 300ms or less... Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou@gmail.com<mailto:damien.cassou@gmail.com>> To: "Pharo Development" <pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr>>; "David Röthlisberger" <roethlis@iam.unibe.ch<mailto:roethlis@iam.unibe.ch>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de<mailto:andreas.raab@gmx.de>> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org<mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>>
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto: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<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project ________________________________ [http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg]Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Good question... I was also puzzled because changing the ToolSet does not change the browser. try SystemBrowser askForDefault or directly do SystemBrowser default: Browser Cheers, Adrian On Jul 9, 2009, at 23:41 , Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Dumb question: what part of ToolSet askForDefault makes the actual change to the default? My real question is what would I do to script setting the standard tool set as the default?
Bill
________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr ] On Behalf Of Gary Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:30 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook- and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
Ouch! Wonder why... (2.8 Quad core here, Vista 64bit SP1, 4GB ram, Pharo-core-10371, Arial 10 fonts via FreeType *StandardToolSet*, image backgound (clownfish)).
260ms is best time recorded.
Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: Benoit St-Jean<mailto:bstjean@yahoo.com> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook- and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
If that helps, I get 7316ms !!
Pharo0.1 Latest update: #10373
On Windows XP, SP3 Dual Core, 3GHz, 2Gb RAM
Vanilla Pharo image with FFI & ODBC packages loaded.
----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Blog: lamneth.wordpress.com A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
________________________________ From: Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com<mailto:gazzaguru2@btinternet.com
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:00 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
As I mentioned on squeak-dev... With the StandardToolSet I get 300ms or less...
Regards, Gary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou@gmail.com<mailto:damien.cassou@gmail.com
To: "Pharo Development" <pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
; "David Röthlisberger" <roethlis@iam.unibe.ch<mailto:roethlis@iam.unibe.ch>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de<mailto:andreas.raab@gmx.de>> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org<mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto: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<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
________________________________ [http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg]Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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
welcome to squeak.... On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:31 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Good question... I was also puzzled because changing the ToolSet does not change the browser.
try
SystemBrowser askForDefault
or directly do
SystemBrowser default: Browser
Cheers, Adrian
On Jul 9, 2009, at 23:41 , Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Dumb question: what part of ToolSet askForDefault makes the actual change to the default? My real question is what would I do to script setting the standard tool set as the default?
Bill
________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr ] On Behalf Of Gary Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:30 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook- and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
Ouch! Wonder why... (2.8 Quad core here, Vista 64bit SP1, 4GB ram, Pharo-core-10371, Arial 10 fonts via FreeType *StandardToolSet*, image backgound (clownfish)).
260ms is best time recorded.
Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: Benoit St-Jean<mailto:bstjean@yahoo.com> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook- and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
If that helps, I get 7316ms !!
Pharo0.1 Latest update: #10373
On Windows XP, SP3 Dual Core, 3GHz, 2Gb RAM
Vanilla Pharo image with FFI & ODBC packages loaded.
----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Blog: lamneth.wordpress.com A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
________________________________ From: Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com<mailto:gazzaguru2@btinternet.com
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:00 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
As I mentioned on squeak-dev... With the StandardToolSet I get 300ms or less...
Regards, Gary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou@gmail.com<mailto:damien.cassou@gmail.com
To: "Pharo Development" <pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
; "David Röthlisberger" <roethlis@iam.unibe.ch<mailto:roethlis@iam.unibe.ch>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de<mailto:andreas.raab@gmx.de>> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org<mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto: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<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
________________________________ [http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg]Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Adrian, Thanks for the clarification. Taking note of Gary's emphasis of the standard toolset, I dug a little and came up with this: ToolSet default:StandardToolSet. SystemBrowser default:Browser. Does that do the job? Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Adrian Lienhard Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 11:32 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean)) Good question... I was also puzzled because changing the ToolSet does not change the browser. try SystemBrowser askForDefault or directly do SystemBrowser default: Browser Cheers, Adrian On Jul 9, 2009, at 23:41 , Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Dumb question: what part of ToolSet askForDefault makes the actual change to the default? My real question is what would I do to script setting the standard tool set as the default?
Bill
________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr ] On Behalf Of Gary Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:30 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook- and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
Ouch! Wonder why... (2.8 Quad core here, Vista 64bit SP1, 4GB ram, Pharo-core-10371, Arial 10 fonts via FreeType *StandardToolSet*, image backgound (clownfish)).
260ms is best time recorded.
Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: Benoit St-Jean<mailto:bstjean@yahoo.com> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge. inria.fr
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability andlook- and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re:[ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
If that helps, I get 7316ms !!
Pharo0.1 Latest update: #10373
On Windows XP, SP3 Dual Core, 3GHz, 2Gb RAM
Vanilla Pharo image with FFI & ODBC packages loaded.
----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Blog: lamneth.wordpress.com A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
________________________________ From: Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com<mailto:gazzaguru2@btinternet.com
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:01:00 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
As I mentioned on squeak-dev... With the StandardToolSet I get 300ms or less...
Regards, Gary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou@gmail.com<mailto:damien.cassou@gmail.com
To: "Pharo Development" <pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:pharo-project@lists.gforge .inria.fr
; "David Röthlisberger" <roethlis@iam.unibe.ch<mailto:roethlis@iam.unibe.ch>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel(was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MITlicenseclean))
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@gmx.de<mailto:andreas.raab@gmx.de>> Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org<mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeak foundation.org
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto: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<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge. inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
________________________________ [http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg]Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
here 308 ms heheheh :) so we are not that bad. Stef On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Damien Cassou wrote:
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun
[ToolSet default browse: ClassBuilder selector: nil] timeToRun in the latest Pharo image (dev09.07.2) on a MacBook Pro: OBPackageBrowser: 1474ms OBSytemBrowser: 529ms Browser: 376ms So, its not per se OmniBrowser, but the OB *package* browser that is terribly slow. Adrian On Jul 9, 2009, at 20:32 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
here 308 ms heheheh :) so we are not that bad. Stef
On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Damien Cassou wrote:
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
As an example here I took the Pharo0.1-10371dev09.07.1 image and looked for all senders of '==' That takes *SO* long you wonder what is going on, well the fans spin up on my macbook pro, keyboard gets hot.. Actually I'm not sure if it ever comes back. If I then do look for all implementors of '==' , there is one, and ask for all senders via the menu, that takes a few seconds but then clicking on a sender, which then shows the list of senders for that sender takes well seconds, minutes? Sorry completely un-usable. On 9-Jul-09, at 11:47 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
[ToolSet default browse: ClassBuilder selector: nil] timeToRun
in the latest Pharo image (dev09.07.2) on a MacBook Pro:
OBPackageBrowser: 1474ms OBSytemBrowser: 529ms Browser: 376ms
So, its not per se OmniBrowser, but the OB *package* browser that is terribly slow.
Adrian
= = = ======================================================================== John M. McIntosh <johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = ========================================================================
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task. The good news is that _hopefully_ profiling will reveal a clue as to where the time goes. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of John M McIntosh Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:12 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) As an example here I took the Pharo0.1-10371dev09.07.1 image and looked for all senders of '==' That takes *SO* long you wonder what is going on, well the fans spin up on my macbook pro, keyboard gets hot.. Actually I'm not sure if it ever comes back. If I then do look for all implementors of '==' , there is one, and ask for all senders via the menu, that takes a few seconds but then clicking on a sender, which then shows the list of senders for that sender takes well seconds, minutes? Sorry completely un-usable. On 9-Jul-09, at 11:47 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
[ToolSet default browse: ClassBuilder selector: nil] timeToRun
in the latest Pharo image (dev09.07.2) on a MacBook Pro:
OBPackageBrowser: 1474ms OBSytemBrowser: 529ms Browser: 376ms
So, its not per se OmniBrowser, but the OB *package* browser that is terribly slow.
Adrian
= = = ======================================================================== John M. McIntosh <johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
OUCH!!!!  That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and  had a prompt reply.  After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph. This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Then we should remove or at least temporarily disable it. The user doesn't care why something is slow. michael
+ aLargeInteger :) -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Michael Rueger Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:10 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Then we should remove or at least temporarily disable it. The user doesn't care why something is slow. michael _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
yes probably but I really needed that when curving out etoy On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:
Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Then we should remove or at least temporarily disable it. The user doesn't care why something is slow.
michael
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Stef, One of my greatest concerns about/for the Squeak community is an overall tone of "*YOU* can't do that because *I* think its's ugly" - or in this case, too slow. So, far be it from me to tell you that you cannot have even a super slow browser that does something you need. That's all the more true when you are doing such great things for Smalltalk and Pharo in particular. I am certainly not suggesting that we remove the browser that helps you make things better. However, I suggest that we consider carefully what we choose as the default tools, or at least give options to those who are finding the current defaults to be slow. Even if we continue with the OB as the default, we could at least have a script somewhere with a comment along the lines of "for a faster (at the expense of features) IDE, evaluate the following:". It appears that we indeed have the alternate tools lurking in the image, so a little advertising might go a long way until we can fix the bottlenecks or Elliot makes a VM that overpowers them. I *think* I am asking only that we advertise the options and perhaps delay cleaning certain parts of the system until the high end tools get a speed boost. Alternately, we could take up a recent suggestion to temporarily disable specific features that are hobbling performance - either way that preserves what you need is fine by me. Is that reasonable? Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:41 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) yes probably but I really needed that when curving out etoy On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:
Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Then we should remove or at least temporarily disable it. The user doesn't care why something is slow.
michael
_______________________________________________ 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
On Jul 10, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Stef,
One of my greatest concerns about/for the Squeak community is an overall tone of "*YOU* can't do that because *I* think its's ugly" - or in this case, too slow. So, far be it from me to tell you that you cannot have even a super slow browser that does something you need. That's all the more true when you are doing such great things for Smalltalk and Pharo in particular. I am certainly not suggesting that we remove the browser that helps you make things better.
However, I suggest that we consider carefully what we choose as the default tools, or at least give options to those who are finding the current defaults to be slow. Even if we continue with the OB as the default, we could at least have a script somewhere with a comment along the lines of "for a faster (at the expense of features) IDE, evaluate the following:".
Yes we are concious about that.
It appears that we indeed have the alternate tools lurking in the image, so a little advertising might go a long way until we can fix the bottlenecks or Elliot makes a VM that overpowers them. I *think* I am asking only that we advertise the options and perhaps delay cleaning certain parts of the system until the high end tools get a speed boost. Alternately, we could take up a recent suggestion to temporarily disable specific features that are hobbling performance - either way that preserves what you need is fine by me. Is that reasonable?
Yes I agree.
methodDisplayStringForClass: class selector: sel ^ String streamContents: [ :s | s nextPutAll: class name ; nextPutAll: ' ' ; nextPutAll: sel ; nextPutAll: ' {' ; nextPutAll: ((class organization categoryOfElement: sel) ifNil: ['']) ; nextPutAll: '} '] " nextPut: $[ ; nextPutAll: (PackageOrganizer default mostSpecificPackageOfClass: class ifNone: [PackageInfo named: '**unpackaged**']) packageName ; nextPut: $]]." On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:
Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Then we should remove or at least temporarily disable it. The user doesn't care why something is slow.
michael
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Im wirting a real package object to replace package info. I hope to have something by the end of the summer. Stef On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
-- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 09.07.2009 23:03, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
Hmmm, really? I do have a fast machine, and it ran in 1,7 seconds for me, but when I run TimeProfileBrowser on the block (first time, later runs alot of stuff is already cached and thus won't show up as prominently if you do TimeProfile on opening a batch of windows ), I get the following percentages: - 32% building the dynamic "all" category - 19% reading all subclass selectors (these are then cached). - 13% reading the timestamp of the compiledMethods /(these are then cached) from sources to see if they're recent - 20% finding extension classes, amongst other things PackageInfo here spends half that time doing an includes: check with an OrderedCollection with 174 elements... -41% building the OB UI. -7% GC'ing A good increase in response time could probably be seen by, as you said, not selecting all category by default, instead promising of it's calculation (In VisualWorks anyways, for those who don't know, it's the same as a fork which returns a value, but blocks if the value it attempted to be used before it's finished calculated). 2 small Performance "bugs" I encountered while checking the methods: OBPackagesOrClassNode>>addUnpackagedCategories: categories to: pkgs does: SystemOrganization categories asSet difference: categories Looking at what the includes check in difference: is done against, it's clear the code should be: SystemOrganization categories difference: categories asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 10866 ms vs 581 ms. (20 times faster) PackageInfo >> externalClasses reads: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses. then does an includes: check, could add an asSet on end there: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 105444ms vs 11447 ms (9 times faster) With these 2 changes, the 20% in finding extension classes was reduced to 11%. Cheers, Henry
Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 09.07.2009 23:03, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
I don't know if this helps but in MC1.5 Matthew sped up the PackageInfo routines for scanning the image by a factor of 10 or so.
Keith
On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Keith Hodges wrote:
I don't know if this helps but in MC1.5 Matthew sped up the PackageInfo routines for scanning the image by a factor of 10 or so.
Hi Keith, Did you have to modify the API provided to MC, or just refactor the internal implementation in PackageInfo. If the latter it could be quick speedup until PackageInfo is replaced. - Brian
Keith
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Keith where can I find MC1.5 because I could not find it on squeaksource. Is it Monticello Public? ? Installer installSilentlyUrl: 'http://installer.pbwiki.com/f/PackageInfo-Base-kph.67.st' . Installer installSilentlyUrl: 'http://installer.pbwiki.com/f/Monticello.impl-kph.635.st' . Stef On Jul 10, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Keith Hodges wrote:
Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 09.07.2009 23:03, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
I don't know if this helps but in MC1.5 Matthew sped up the PackageInfo routines for scanning the image by a factor of 10 or so.
Keith
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Keith
where can I find MC1.5 because I could not find it on squeaksource. Is it Monticello Public?
http://www.squeaksource.com/mc To load see http://installer.pbworks.com/LevelPlayingField Keith
Thanks henrik Probably the package browser is doing too much stuff too. I'm slowly making progress on the new package class (test driven) Stef On Jul 10, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 09.07.2009 23:03, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
Hmmm, really? I do have a fast machine, and it ran in 1,7 seconds for me, but when I run TimeProfileBrowser on the block (first time, later runs alot of stuff is already cached and thus won't show up as prominently if you do TimeProfile on opening a batch of windows ), I get the following percentages: - 32% building the dynamic "all" category - 19% reading all subclass selectors (these are then cached). - 13% reading the timestamp of the compiledMethods /(these are then cached) from sources to see if they're recent - 20% finding extension classes, amongst other things PackageInfo here spends half that time doing an includes: check with an OrderedCollection with 174 elements... -41% building the OB UI. -7% GC'ing
A good increase in response time could probably be seen by, as you said, not selecting all category by default, instead promising of it's calculation (In VisualWorks anyways, for those who don't know, it's the same as a fork which returns a value, but blocks if the value it attempted to be used before it's finished calculated).
2 small Performance "bugs" I encountered while checking the methods: OBPackagesOrClassNode>>addUnpackagedCategories: categories to: pkgs does: SystemOrganization categories asSet difference: categories Looking at what the includes check in difference: is done against, it's clear the code should be: SystemOrganization categories difference: categories asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 10866 ms vs 581 ms. (20 times faster)
PackageInfo >> externalClasses reads: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses. then does an includes: check, could add an asSet on end there: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 105444ms vs 11447 ms (9 times faster)
With these 2 changes, the 20% in finding extension classes was reduced to 11%.
Cheers, Henry
<UseSetForIncludes. 1.cs>_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Thanks henrik I will have a look at that. If sombody else want to try and comment. It would be great! Stef On Jul 10, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 09.07.2009 23:03, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
Hmmm, really? I do have a fast machine, and it ran in 1,7 seconds for me, but when I run TimeProfileBrowser on the block (first time, later runs alot of stuff is already cached and thus won't show up as prominently if you do TimeProfile on opening a batch of windows ), I get the following percentages: - 32% building the dynamic "all" category - 19% reading all subclass selectors (these are then cached). - 13% reading the timestamp of the compiledMethods /(these are then cached) from sources to see if they're recent - 20% finding extension classes, amongst other things PackageInfo here spends half that time doing an includes: check with an OrderedCollection with 174 elements... -41% building the OB UI. -7% GC'ing
A good increase in response time could probably be seen by, as you said, not selecting all category by default, instead promising of it's calculation (In VisualWorks anyways, for those who don't know, it's the same as a fork which returns a value, but blocks if the value it attempted to be used before it's finished calculated).
2 small Performance "bugs" I encountered while checking the methods: OBPackagesOrClassNode>>addUnpackagedCategories: categories to: pkgs does: SystemOrganization categories asSet difference: categories Looking at what the includes check in difference: is done against, it's clear the code should be: SystemOrganization categories difference: categories asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 10866 ms vs 581 ms. (20 times faster)
PackageInfo >> externalClasses reads: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses. then does an includes: check, could add an asSet on end there: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 105444ms vs 11447 ms (9 times faster)
With these 2 changes, the 20% in finding extension classes was reduced to 11%.
Cheers, Henry
<UseSetForIncludes. 1.cs>_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
There's a changeset attached with those two, if you didn't notice ;) Behaviour is sort of an extreme class, results for others might vary. Also, I'm a bit of a loss what to do when submitting change proposals to Pharo Dev, where there are lots of "external" packages, and I have no idea who the current maintainers of affected packages are... Cheers, Henry On 11.07.2009 09:10, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Thanks henrik I will have a look at that. If sombody else want to try and comment. It would be great!
Stef
On Jul 10, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 09.07.2009 23:03, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
Hmmm, really? I do have a fast machine, and it ran in 1,7 seconds for me, but when I run TimeProfileBrowser on the block (first time, later runs alot of stuff is already cached and thus won't show up as prominently if you do TimeProfile on opening a batch of windows ), I get the following percentages: - 32% building the dynamic "all" category - 19% reading all subclass selectors (these are then cached). - 13% reading the timestamp of the compiledMethods /(these are then cached) from sources to see if they're recent - 20% finding extension classes, amongst other things PackageInfo here spends half that time doing an includes: check with an OrderedCollection with 174 elements... -41% building the OB UI. -7% GC'ing
A good increase in response time could probably be seen by, as you said, not selecting all category by default, instead promising of it's calculation (In VisualWorks anyways, for those who don't know, it's the same as a fork which returns a value, but blocks if the value it attempted to be used before it's finished calculated).
2 small Performance "bugs" I encountered while checking the methods: OBPackagesOrClassNode>>addUnpackagedCategories: categories to: pkgs does: SystemOrganization categories asSet difference: categories Looking at what the includes check in difference: is done against, it's clear the code should be: SystemOrganization categories difference: categories asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 10866 ms vs 581 ms. (20 times faster)
PackageInfo>> externalClasses reads: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses. then does an includes: check, could add an asSet on end there: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 105444ms vs 11447 ms (9 times faster)
With these 2 changes, the 20% in finding extension classes was reduced to 11%.
Cheers, Henry
<UseSetForIncludes. 1.cs>_______________________________________________ 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
On Jul 11, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
There's a changeset attached with those two, if you didn't notice ;) Behaviour is sort of an extreme class, results for others might vary.
Also, I'm a bit of a loss what to do when submitting change proposals to Pharo Dev, where there are lots of "external" packages, and I have no idea who the current maintainers of affected packages are...
I passed the info to david and this is integrated to OB I will integrate the PackageInfo part in the next release (now I'm exhausted). Stef
Cheers, Henry
On 11.07.2009 09:10, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Thanks henrik I will have a look at that. If sombody else want to try and comment. It would be great!
Stef
On Jul 10, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 09.07.2009 23:03, Lukas Renggli wrote:
OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task.
Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph.
This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost instantly.
Lukas
Hmmm, really? I do have a fast machine, and it ran in 1,7 seconds for me, but when I run TimeProfileBrowser on the block (first time, later runs alot of stuff is already cached and thus won't show up as prominently if you do TimeProfile on opening a batch of windows ), I get the following percentages: - 32% building the dynamic "all" category - 19% reading all subclass selectors (these are then cached). - 13% reading the timestamp of the compiledMethods /(these are then cached) from sources to see if they're recent - 20% finding extension classes, amongst other things PackageInfo here spends half that time doing an includes: check with an OrderedCollection with 174 elements... -41% building the OB UI. -7% GC'ing
A good increase in response time could probably be seen by, as you said, not selecting all category by default, instead promising of it's calculation (In VisualWorks anyways, for those who don't know, it's the same as a fork which returns a value, but blocks if the value it attempted to be used before it's finished calculated).
2 small Performance "bugs" I encountered while checking the methods: OBPackagesOrClassNode>>addUnpackagedCategories: categories to: pkgs does: SystemOrganization categories asSet difference: categories Looking at what the includes check in difference: is done against, it's clear the code should be: SystemOrganization categories difference: categories asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 10866 ms vs 581 ms. (20 times faster)
PackageInfo >> externalClasses reads: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses. then does an includes: check, could add an asSet on end there: myClasses := self classesAndMetaClasses asSet. Difference: 500 repetitions in the debugger I had open at the time: 105444ms vs 11447 ms (9 times faster)
With these 2 changes, the 20% in finding extension classes was reduced to 11%.
Cheers, Henry
<UseSetForIncludes. 1.cs>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (12)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Benoit St-Jean -
Brian Brown -
Damien Cassou -
Gary Chambers -
Henrik Sperre Johansen -
John M McIntosh -
Keith Hodges -
Lukas Renggli -
Michael Rueger -
Schwab,Wilhelm K -
Stéphane Ducasse