July 2013 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 09:50, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9 July 2013 09:13, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8 July 2013 22:43, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :). >>>>> >>>>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>>>> >>>>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>>>> >>>>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >>>> stop wasting time on it? >>>> >>>> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >>>> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >>>> >>>> And change this: >>>> >>>> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >>>> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >>>> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. >>> >>> Which reason? (It is a real question, I do not remember why it is so low) >>> >> >> If you reserve most of memory for objects, think how you could use things like >> freetype, opengl, cairo & any other library which allocates memory on >> conventional heap. >> also, think that DLLs and kernel needs breathing space as well. > > yep, but still could be doubled and have enough reserved memory for externals, I think. > In any case, we need a solution, 512m is obviously too small (no matter if 1G is still not enough, it would be a lot better). > > Not to extend memory because "is still not enough" is like not healing a guy because "he will be dead old anyway" :) > https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab774… please check >> >> >>> Esteban >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 09:13, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>> >>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>> >>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>> >> >> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >> stop wasting time on it? >> >> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >> >> And change this: >> >> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >> #endif >> >> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. > > Igor this is a real issue and we are all fighting to get more members in the consortium > so that one day we can hire a guy like you to address it. > https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab774… > Stef -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Benjamin

On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 July 2013 22:52, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I am with Doru here. >> Today, 500MB is NOTHINGGGGGG. >> NOTHIIIIIIIIING. >> NOTHING. >> A LATOP comes with 8GB. 16x more than the max the VM can allocate. >> For one of my clients, I have just set up a server with 32GB. It has 64x >> than the max a Pharo VM can allocate. Really? >> Going to disk is not always a possibility for many many reasons. >> And even if it were possible....if I have to spent XXX hours to workaround >> Pharo because it cannot use more than 500MB, then people will simply move to >> another language. >> And finally, wasn't a language like Smalltalk prepare for you and let you >> only focus in your app blah blah blah.. ? having to go to disk doesn't >> sound like that... >> >> So, Igor, I cannot stand that point of view. I can stand many others, like >> explaining why it's not Pharo fault, the problem window has, the money/time >> it would take for an engineer to fix it, etc etc etc. But not your position. >> > My point is that people should stop raising this topic again and again > and do something about it. > Either rewrite memory management in VM, to dynamically allocate address space, > or rewrite own application to use disk memory. > > And i know that 512mb is nothing, especially for application which > deals with big amounts of data. > But from that perspective, 8GB is nothing as well. Be realistic: if > you need to generate/process lots of data, > you should not rely on just operative memory, it is pretty limited > resource, comparing to disk memory. > It was like that from the very beginning, and i think it will stay > like that for a while. > "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates > >> Cheers, >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

July 9, 2013

Enforcing uniqueness constraints in Voyage-Mongo

by raphonic

Hi, I would like to know how to set certain instance variables of my models to be unique and also if there is a mechanism to set other constraints(like presence of an embedded object) in Voyage-Mongo. I searched the MongoDB docs and it says that constraints should be implemented at the application level. Does Voyage have any support for setting constraints? -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Enforcing-uniqueness-constraints-in-Voyage-Mongo-tp46… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Esteban Lorenzano

On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 July 2013 09:13, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 8 July 2013 22:43, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :). >>>> >>>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>>> >>>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>>> >>>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >>> stop wasting time on it? >>> >>> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >>> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >>> >>> And change this: >>> >>> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >>> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >>> #endif >>> >>> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >>> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. >> >> Which reason? (It is a real question, I do not remember why it is so low) >> > > If you reserve most of memory for objects, think how you could use things like > freetype, opengl, cairo & any other library which allocates memory on > conventional heap. > also, think that DLLs and kernel needs breathing space as well. yep, but still could be doubled and have enough reserved memory for externals, I think. In any case, we need a solution, 512m is obviously too small (no matter if 1G is still not enough, it would be a lot better). Not to extend memory because "is still not enough" is like not healing a guy because "he will be dead old anyway" :) > > >> Esteban > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 09:13, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8 July 2013 22:43, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :). >>> >>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>> >>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>> >>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>> >> >> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >> stop wasting time on it? >> >> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >> >> And change this: >> >> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >> #endif >> >> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. > > Which reason? (It is a real question, I do not remember why it is so low) > If you reserve most of memory for objects, think how you could use things like freetype, opengl, cairo & any other library which allocates memory on conventional heap. also, think that DLLs and kernel needs breathing space as well. > Esteban -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about dynamic spec

by Andrei Vasile Chis

If you decide to use this example for the Spec chapter I could do another pass on the code and make it nicer. Andrei On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>wrote: > Ben > > I'm still fuzzy after a flood in the flat we rent at 2 in the morning :) > but I was thinking that may be we can use this example to explain the > dynamic part of spec. > So can you take this view also when you look at the code? > If this sounds good to you, I will put on the stack that I should look and > see how to put it in the Spec chapter. > > Stef > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:05 PM, Andrei Vasile Chis < > chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I've implemented a small UI using the dynamic features of spec and I'd > like to know if there isn't a better way to do it. My use case is simple: I > have a normal ComposableModel that has two models - a list and > a DynamicComposableModel. The DynamicComposableModel should contain a list > of buttons that should change every time the user selects an element in the > list. I've implemented a demo that can be seen if you download the package > DynamicSpec-Examples from > http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/AndreiChis/Playground/main and execute the > code from the class comment of DSChangingButtons. > > My problem is that the widget containing the buttons has to define a spec > layout on the class side. I haven't found a way to tell the spec layout to > add a widget and use a method on the object for constructing the layout. > I've manage to get away by dynamically reconstructing the layout when the > selection changes, however it's not that nice because I had to duplicate > the layout of the main widget both on the class side and the object side. > It would be nice to add a widget to the layout like this: 'aSpec > dynamicAdd: modelGetter withSpec: aSymbol ' that would call aSymbol on the > object and not on the class. This may or may not make sense :) > > To be concrete, the method DSToolbarModel>>updateButtons will call the > method dynamicLayout on it's parent which in turn will > call dynamicLayoutWithSpec: on the toolbar. I'd like to avoid this, and > when specifying the layout of the parent widget to call a method on the > instance side of it subwidgets to get their layout. > > Now I'll end here this rather long email :) > > Cheers, > Andrei > > >

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 8 July 2013 22:52, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am with Doru here. > Today, 500MB is NOTHINGGGGGG. > NOTHIIIIIIIIING. > NOTHING. > A LATOP comes with 8GB. 16x more than the max the VM can allocate. > For one of my clients, I have just set up a server with 32GB. It has 64x > than the max a Pharo VM can allocate. Really? > Going to disk is not always a possibility for many many reasons. > And even if it were possible....if I have to spent XXX hours to workaround > Pharo because it cannot use more than 500MB, then people will simply move to > another language. > And finally, wasn't a language like Smalltalk prepare for you and let you > only focus in your app blah blah blah.. ? having to go to disk doesn't > sound like that... > > So, Igor, I cannot stand that point of view. I can stand many others, like > explaining why it's not Pharo fault, the problem window has, the money/time > it would take for an engineer to fix it, etc etc etc. But not your position. > My point is that people should stop raising this topic again and again and do something about it. Either rewrite memory management in VM, to dynamically allocate address space, or rewrite own application to use disk memory. And i know that 512mb is nothing, especially for application which deals with big amounts of data. But from that perspective, 8GB is nothing as well. Be realistic: if you need to generate/process lots of data, you should not rely on just operative memory, it is pretty limited resource, comparing to disk memory. It was like that from the very beginning, and i think it will stay like that for a while. > Cheers, > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >> >> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >> >> After all, we are here to change the world :). >> > > Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should > stop wasting time on it? > > All you need to do, to change the limit, go to > platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h > > And change this: > > #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY > #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 > #endif > > So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. > But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. Igor this is a real issue and we are all fighting to get more members in the consortium so that one day we can hire a guy like you to address it. Stef

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Esteban Lorenzano

On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 July 2013 22:43, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :). >> >> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >> >> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >> >> After all, we are here to change the world :). >> > > Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should > stop wasting time on it? > > All you need to do, to change the limit, go to > platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h > > And change this: > > #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY > #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 > #endif > > So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. > But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. Which reason? (It is a real question, I do not remember why it is so low) Esteban > >> Cheers, >> Doru > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

July 9, 2013