June 2015 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo image processing library

by Serge Stinckwich

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > > > 2015-06-25 18:41 GMT+02:00 Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Hi, >> >> is there any image (as in picture) processing library in the likes of >> Python's PIL(http://effbot.org/imagingbook/image.htm), >> >> or even (highly unlikely) something like OpenCV (http://opencv.org/)? > > > Not that I know of. I was interested at one time with the same topic. > Juan Vuletich had a nice PhotoSqueak project (squeak 1 or 2?) > http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/PhotoSqueak/PhotoSqueakGallery/PhotoSqueakG… I ask Juan about this one, but apparently this is not open-source. > There is Smagick > http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~StefanReichhart/Smagick/ > > (not a library on its own, but an interface to imagemagick) > > I think there was another squeak/imagemagic project but I don't remember. > > It would be great to have something like imagemagick, but implemented > entirely in smalltalk. There was some experiments done by Luc : http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~LucFabresse/OpenCV There is also some basic image processing in VirtualGPU : http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~ronsaldo/VirtualGPU Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] <example> pragmas and example* methods use-cases

by Luc Fabresse

2015-06-30 9:09 GMT+02:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl>: > On 29-06-15 20:10, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > >> I strongly feel we should be >> more specific and uniform by either using (<exampleInstance> & >> <exampleCode>) or (<sampleInstance> & <sampleCode>). >> > > +1 Be specific. +1 too > > > Stephan > > > >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Jan BlizniÄenko

I ran it in Pharo 4 (40616) because method putSource:inFile:withPreamble: no longer exists in Pharo 5 and results are: Desktop... all: 13.062 per second compile: 6,603 per second (why the hell is there comma as separator and not dot?) store: 13.431 per second add: 406.400 per second Notebook... all: 210.180 per second compile: 12,007 per second store: 454.818 per second add: 806.239 per second Jan Peter UhnÃ¡k wrote > Windows XP > 1011857707 bytecodes/sec; 132044070 sends/sec > > Debian > 1172295363 bytecodes/sec; 144744207 sends/sec > > But I think taking the compile: method apart tells a better story > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > code := 'a'. > > method := Object compiler > source: code; > requestor: nil; > failBlock: [ ^nil ]; > compile. > > all := [ > Object compile: code. > ]. > > compile := [ > Object compiler > source: code; > requestor: nil; > failBlock: [ ^nil ]; > compile. > ]. > > store := [ > method putSource: code inFile: 2 > withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; > cr]. > ]. > > add := [ > Object addSelector: method selector withMethod: method notifying: nil. > ]. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Windows XP: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > all bench. "'183.763 per second'" > compile bench. "'10,729 per second'" > *store bench. "'286.170 per second'"* > add bench. "'697.883 per second'" > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Debian > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > all bench. "'622.551 per second'" > compile bench. "'11,129 per second'" > *store bench. "'41,604 per second'"* > add bench. "'787.885 per second'" > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 150x slower disk operations? -_- > > I mean for normal programming this doesn't really matter, but when we are > downloading even medium-sized package it takes ages to process... > > Peter -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] <example> pragmas and example* methods use-cases

by Stephan Eggermont

On 29-06-15 20:10, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > I strongly feel we should be > more specific and uniform by either using (<exampleInstance> & > <exampleCode>) or (<sampleInstance> & <sampleCode>). +1 Be specific. Stephan

June 30, 2015

Camp Smalltalk PDX --- August 21st through the 23rd

by Andres Valloud

Camp Smalltalk Portland 2015 is go for August 21st through the 23rd! (and if you arrive earlier on the 20th that's cool too) Please register for the event here: https://www.picatic.com/event14352674835773927 Help us by filling in the questions so you can get your event shirt. And also see that we're having a BBQ with live music on Saturday. You can't miss it!

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

Windows XP 1011857707 bytecodes/sec; 132044070 sends/sec Debian 1172295363 bytecodes/sec; 144744207 sends/sec But I think taking the compile: method apart tells a better story ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ code := 'a'. method := Object compiler source: code; requestor: nil; failBlock: [ ^nil ]; compile. all := [ Object compile: code. ]. compile := [ Object compiler source: code; requestor: nil; failBlock: [ ^nil ]; compile. ]. store := [ method putSource: code inFile: 2 withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; cr]. ]. add := [ Object addSelector: method selector withMethod: method notifying: nil. ]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Windows XP: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ all bench. "'183.763 per second'" compile bench. "'10,729 per second'" *store bench. "'286.170 per second'"* add bench. "'697.883 per second'" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debian ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ all bench. "'622.551 per second'" compile bench. "'11,129 per second'" *store bench. "'41,604 per second'"* add bench. "'787.885 per second'" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 150x slower disk operations? -_- I mean for normal programming this doesn't really matter, but when we are downloading even medium-sized package it takes ages to process... Peter

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo image processing library

by Nicolai Hess

2015-06-25 18:41 GMT+02:00 Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>: > Hi, > > is there any image (as in picture) processing library in the likes of > Python's PIL(http://effbot.org/imagingbook/image.htm), > > or even (highly unlikely) something like OpenCV (http://opencv.org/)? > Not that I know of. Juan Vuletich had a nice PhotoSqueak project (squeak 1 or 2?) http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/PhotoSqueak/PhotoSqueakGallery/PhotoSqueakG… There is Smagick http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~StefanReichhart/Smagick/ (not a library on its own, but an interface to imagemagick) I think there was another squeak/imagemagic project but I don't remember. It would be great to have something like imagemagick, but implemented entirely in smalltalk. nicolai > > Thanks, > Peter >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Jan BlizniÄenko

Good idea. Results are... desktop: 664 503 569 bytecodes/sec; 837 14 077 sends/sec. Linux in VM on desktop: 716 083 916 bytecodes/sec; 74 030 622 sends/sec notebook: 1 114 861 186 bytecodes/sec; 148 958 012 sends/sec ...results fluctuate by about 10 % on all systems when tried multiple times with some pauses between. It is right that notebook is almost two times faster (but not 10 times like with compilation), because it has more recent processor (Core i5 mobile vs Athlon 64 x2). Jan ClÃ©ment Bera-4 wrote > What about "1 tinyBenchmarks" ? > > Just to know if the VM is slower as a whole or only compilation / source > access ? > > 2015-06-30 0:36 GMT+02:00 Jan BlizniÄenko < > bliznjan@.cvut > >: > >> And one another benchmark of linux in VM on that desktop PC: >> Roassal loading - 58 s >> compilations per second - avg: 262.4682, min: 257.194, max: 289.684 >> ...so the desktop PC is capable of better result and problem is somewhere >> in >> Windows, which I was afraid of... >> >> I'd also like to add to previous Windows tests that with antivirus turned >> on >> everything takes more time approximately by half of original time. >> >> Jan >> >> >> Jan BlizniÄenko wrote >> > Desktop: 386 s. >> > Notebook: 48 s. >> > Linux in VM on notebook: 27 s. >> > >> > >> > Notebook: compilations per second - avg: 217.7153, min: 5.0, max: >> 247.258 >> > Desktop: compilations per second - avg: 23.1337, min: 19.448, max: >> 28.155 >> > Linux in VM on notebook: compilations per second - avg: >> 529.0066600000001, >> > min: 5.0, max: 573.97 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] <example> pragmas and example* methods use-cases

by Nicolai Hess

2015-06-29 20:10 GMT+02:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > Peter UhnÃ¡k wrote > > It seems that > > <sample> > > is then the go-to naming for now > > I agree with Ben that from a native English perspective, exemplar doesn't > quite sound right. > > Sample and Example are the two words that most clearly capture the intent. > The problem with using #sample to return instances and #example to > illustrate usage is that it's a bit too subtle. Even though technically one > could argue the logic of that distinction, in reality English speakers use > them interchangeably and it will be confusing. A core principle of > Smalltalk > is to type a bit more to make things clearer (e.g. avoid > single-character/abbreviated variable names). I strongly feel we should be > more specific and uniform by either using (<exampleInstance> & > <exampleCode>) or (<sampleInstance> & <sampleCode>). > > <sample> for example instances <demo> for examples opening a window or any other interaction ? > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/example-pragmas-and-example-methods-use-cases-tp48334… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Nicolai Hess

2015-06-30 3:17 GMT+02:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: > What about "1 tinyBenchmarks" ? > > Just to know if the VM is slower as a whole or only compilation / source > access ? > most time is spend on primitives FilePrimitives are slow on windows. > > 2015-06-30 0:36 GMT+02:00 Jan BlizniÄenko <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz>: > >> And one another benchmark of linux in VM on that desktop PC: >> Roassal loading - 58 s >> compilations per second - avg: 262.4682, min: 257.194, max: 289.684 >> ...so the desktop PC is capable of better result and problem is somewhere >> in >> Windows, which I was afraid of... >> >> I'd also like to add to previous Windows tests that with antivirus turned >> on >> everything takes more time approximately by half of original time. >> >> Jan >> >> >> Jan BlizniÄenko wrote >> > Desktop: 386 s. >> > Notebook: 48 s. >> > Linux in VM on notebook: 27 s. >> > >> > >> > Notebook: compilations per second - avg: 217.7153, min: 5.0, max: >> 247.258 >> > Desktop: compilations per second - avg: 23.1337, min: 19.448, max: >> 28.155 >> > Linux in VM on notebook: compilations per second - avg: >> 529.0066600000001, >> > min: 5.0, max: 573.97 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >

June 30, 2015