December 2016 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo

by Dimitris Chloupis

no its not the loop i tried changing the computation and printing the sum the loops is definetly executed and I am also getting *time_spent=0.000001* ok this is insane but i found what is wrong with your code your loop is for (long i = 1; i <= 1000000000; ++i) but my loop is for (int i = 0; i <= 1000000000; ++i) no its not the long that causes the problem its the fact that you star counting from 1 no idea why but if you start counting from 0 it reports sensible numbers in the case of long sum = 0; for (long i = 0; i <= 1000000000; ++i) { sum = 0+i; } it reports the reasonable *time_spent=0.397446* so maybe its some optimisation it does when the counting starts from 1 not executing the loop in its entirety ? On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 6:33 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > On 17 Dec 2016, at 15:52, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> >> On 17 Dec 2016, at 15:23, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> >>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 14:28, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: >>> >>> This is not a comparable benchmark as the sum in Smalltalk keeps on growing and ends up doing LargeInteger calculations and thus the speed loss, while the c the int just rolls over. >>> >>> Sum in Smalltalk = 500000000500000000 >>> Sum in C = -1243309312 >> >> Yes, I realised afterwards. Shame on me. >> >> Now, in Pharo 64 bits: >> >> [ >> | sum | >> sum:= 0. >> 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. >> self assert: sum = (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) ] timeToRun. >> >> "0:00:00:03.379" >> >> (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) < SmallInteger maxVal. >> >> "true" >> >> So there the speed difference is way smaller. > > And here is a correct C99 version > > $ cat bench.c > #include <stdio.h> > #include <time.h> > #include <assert.h> > > int main() { > clock_t begin = clock(); > > long sum = 0; > for (int i = 1; i <= 1000000000; i++) > sum += i; > > assert(sum == ((1000000000*1000000001)/2)); > > clock_t end = clock(); > double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; > printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); > } > > prometheus:tmp sven$ ./a.out > time_spent=2.393986 But, $ cat bench.c #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #include <assert.h> int main() { clock_t begin = clock(); long sum = 0L; for (long i = 1; i <= 1000000000; i++) sum += i; assert(sum == ((1000000000L*1000000001L)/2L)); clock_t end = clock(); double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); return (int)sum; } $ cc -O2 bench.c $ ./a.out time_spent=0.000002 Who knows what optimisation was applied ? Maybe the loop wasn't executed at all ... (but I did add the return statement). >>> Best regards, >>> Henrik >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe >>> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 2:15 PM >>> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo >>> >>> Like this: >>> >>> [ | sum | sum:= 0. 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. sum ] timeToRun. >>> >>> "0:00:00:39.305" >>> >>> cat bench.c >>> >>> #include <stdio.h> >>> #include <time.h> >>> >>> int main() { >>> clock_t begin = clock(); >>> >>> int sum = 0; >>> for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) >>> sum += i; >>> >>> clock_t end = clock(); >>> double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; >>> printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); } >>> >>> ./a.out >>> >>> time_spent=2.370234 >>> >>> That is C being 16 times faster ... >>> >>>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:49, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hmm, this sounds wrong (C++ should be (a lot) faster on such micro benchmarks). >>>> >>>> You should exclude the executable startup time. >>>> >>>> In Pharo you should do [ .. ] timeToRun and something similar in C/C++. >>>> >>>>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:41, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> in multiplication pharo is around 2 times slower compared to C++ >>>>> >>>>> #include <stdio.h> >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>> double x=1; >>>>> for(double i; i<1000000000 ; ++i) >>>>> { >>>>> x = 0.1*i; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> return 1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> time ./testMul >>>>> 3.13 real 3.13 user 0.00 sys >>>>> >>>>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 1. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := 0.1 * each]" >>>>> 1 >>>>> 4.97 real 4.48 user 0.09 sys >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:16 PM Dimitris Chloupis < kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> So I was bored and decided to test how fast pharo is compared to C++. >>>>> >>>>> so I tested addition >>>>> >>>>> C++ version: >>>>> >>>>> #include <stdio.h> >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>> double x=0; >>>>> while(x<1000000000) >>>>> { >>>>> x = x+1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> return 1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> time ./test1 >>>>> 2.84 real 2.84 user 0.00 sys >>>>> >>>>> Pharo version: >>>>> >>>>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 0. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := x +1]" >>>>> 1 >>>>> 2.09 real 1.94 user 0.08 sys >>>>> >>>>> Pharo is +50% faster than C++ ... o_O ... that's suprising, I assume here Pharo VM probably does some kind of optimisation.

Dec. 17, 2016

Unscheduled outage for http://ss3.gemtalksystems.com/ and http://seaside.gemtalksystems.com/ss

by Dale Henrichs

The colo where the hardware is located had announced scheduled maintenance for our cluster, but there was not supposed to be any downtime ... we are looking into the problem Dale

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How to edit an element with Teapot

by stepharong

Hi sven so I studied your code and I got a solution working. Tx for your support. Now I do not know if what I did is correct. registerRoutes teapot GET: '/' -> '<h1>My game collection</h1>'; output: #html; GET: '/games' -> [ :reg | (self htmlListFor: self games)]; output: #html; GET: '/findDetails/<title>' -> [ :req | collector findMatchingTitle: (req at: #title) ]; output: #json; GET: '/find/<title>' -> [ :req | TeaResponse ok body: (self htmlListFor: (collector findMatchingTitle: (req at: #title))) ]; output: #html; GET: '/add' -> [ :req | self edit: req ]; GET: '/create' -> (Send message: #create: to: self) So I used /add to enter the parameter and pass them to the /create page. in the /create I created the new item and I could redirect to game list (I imagine that this is possible). So now I see tht I could merge add and create into a single page (as you did) and edit: request | title page | title := 'Enter a title'. page := ZnHtmlOutputStream streamContents: [ :html | html page: 'Create game named' do: [ html tag: #form attributes: #(#action 'create' 'accept-charset' 'utf-8' #method #GET) do: [ html str: 'Title'; space; tag: #input attributes: {#type. #input. #name. #input. #value. title}; space; tag: #input attributes: #(#type #submit) ] ] ]. ^ ZnResponse new statusLine: ZnStatusLine ok; entity: (ZnEntity html: page); yourself create: aRequest collector addGame: (GameItem new title: (aRequest at: #input)). ^ ZnResponse new statusLine: ZnStatusLine ok; entity: (ZnEntity html: 'Created!'); yourself

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 17 Dec 2016, at 15:52, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> >> On 17 Dec 2016, at 15:23, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> >>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 14:28, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: >>> >>> This is not a comparable benchmark as the sum in Smalltalk keeps on growing and ends up doing LargeInteger calculations and thus the speed loss, while the c the int just rolls over. >>> >>> Sum in Smalltalk = 500000000500000000 >>> Sum in C = -1243309312 >> >> Yes, I realised afterwards. Shame on me. >> >> Now, in Pharo 64 bits: >> >> [ >> | sum | >> sum:= 0. >> 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. >> self assert: sum = (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) ] timeToRun. >> >> "0:00:00:03.379" >> >> (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) < SmallInteger maxVal. >> >> "true" >> >> So there the speed difference is way smaller. > > And here is a correct C99 version > > $ cat bench.c > #include <stdio.h> > #include <time.h> > #include <assert.h> > > int main() { > clock_t begin = clock(); > > long sum = 0; > for (int i = 1; i <= 1000000000; i++) > sum += i; > > assert(sum == ((1000000000*1000000001)/2)); > > clock_t end = clock(); > double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; > printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); > } > > prometheus:tmp sven$ ./a.out > time_spent=2.393986 But, $ cat bench.c #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #include <assert.h> int main() { clock_t begin = clock(); long sum = 0L; for (long i = 1; i <= 1000000000; i++) sum += i; assert(sum == ((1000000000L*1000000001L)/2L)); clock_t end = clock(); double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); return (int)sum; } $ cc -O2 bench.c $ ./a.out time_spent=0.000002 Who knows what optimisation was applied ? Maybe the loop wasn't executed at all ... (but I did add the return statement). >>> Best regards, >>> Henrik >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe >>> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 2:15 PM >>> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo >>> >>> Like this: >>> >>> [ | sum | sum:= 0. 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. sum ] timeToRun. >>> >>> "0:00:00:39.305" >>> >>> cat bench.c >>> >>> #include <stdio.h> >>> #include <time.h> >>> >>> int main() { >>> clock_t begin = clock(); >>> >>> int sum = 0; >>> for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) >>> sum += i; >>> >>> clock_t end = clock(); >>> double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; >>> printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); } >>> >>> ./a.out >>> >>> time_spent=2.370234 >>> >>> That is C being 16 times faster ... >>> >>>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:49, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hmm, this sounds wrong (C++ should be (a lot) faster on such micro benchmarks). >>>> >>>> You should exclude the executable startup time. >>>> >>>> In Pharo you should do [ .. ] timeToRun and something similar in C/C++. >>>> >>>>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:41, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> in multiplication pharo is around 2 times slower compared to C++ >>>>> >>>>> #include <stdio.h> >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>> double x=1; >>>>> for(double i; i<1000000000 ; ++i) >>>>> { >>>>> x = 0.1*i; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> return 1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> time ./testMul >>>>> 3.13 real 3.13 user 0.00 sys >>>>> >>>>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 1. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := 0.1 * each]" >>>>> 1 >>>>> 4.97 real 4.48 user 0.09 sys >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:16 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> So I was bored and decided to test how fast pharo is compared to C++. >>>>> >>>>> so I tested addition >>>>> >>>>> C++ version: >>>>> >>>>> #include <stdio.h> >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>> double x=0; >>>>> while(x<1000000000) >>>>> { >>>>> x = x+1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> return 1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> time ./test1 >>>>> 2.84 real 2.84 user 0.00 sys >>>>> >>>>> Pharo version: >>>>> >>>>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 0. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := x +1]" >>>>> 1 >>>>> 2.09 real 1.94 user 0.08 sys >>>>> >>>>> Pharo is +50% faster than C++ ... o_O ... that's suprising, I assume here Pharo VM probably does some kind of optimisation.

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How to edit an element with Teapot

by stepharong

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:29:24 +0100, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Do want to build/use a REST API or do you want to build a simple web app I want to have a small web app that is basically using to teapot to listen and serve > I thought you wanted to do the first. No because teapot is doing and your section 11 is indeed that. > The second is easy too, ZnDefaultServerDelegate>>#formTest1: #formTest2: > #formTest3: are doing that (in a single handler, generating the page, > using the submitted info as well. Ok I will have a look Tx sven. Stef > >> On 17 Dec 2016, at 15:13, stepharong <stepharong(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >> Ok I read it but I do not understand how I should do it ;( >> >> With teapot or Zinc I want to be able to serve an html string >> (containing a form probably with a submit button) that will let the >> user to >> pass some data and that the server can access this data and invoke a >> method. >> >> I want to get the same behavior than textInput in seaside >> >> My user has only one web browser. >> May be this is obvious in the chapter but I do not see it. >> >> Stef > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 17 Dec 2016, at 15:23, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > >> On 17 Dec 2016, at 14:28, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: >> >> This is not a comparable benchmark as the sum in Smalltalk keeps on growing and ends up doing LargeInteger calculations and thus the speed loss, while the c the int just rolls over. >> >> Sum in Smalltalk = 500000000500000000 >> Sum in C = -1243309312 > > Yes, I realised afterwards. Shame on me. > > Now, in Pharo 64 bits: > > [ > | sum | > sum:= 0. > 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. > self assert: sum = (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) ] timeToRun. > > "0:00:00:03.379" > > (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) < SmallInteger maxVal. > > "true" > > So there the speed difference is way smaller. And here is a correct C99 version $ cat bench.c #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #include <assert.h> int main() { clock_t begin = clock(); long sum = 0; for (int i = 1; i <= 1000000000; i++) sum += i; assert(sum == ((1000000000*1000000001)/2)); clock_t end = clock(); double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); } prometheus:tmp sven$ ./a.out time_spent=2.393986 >> Best regards, >> Henrik >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe >> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 2:15 PM >> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo >> >> Like this: >> >> [ | sum | sum:= 0. 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. sum ] timeToRun. >> >> "0:00:00:39.305" >> >> cat bench.c >> >> #include <stdio.h> >> #include <time.h> >> >> int main() { >> clock_t begin = clock(); >> >> int sum = 0; >> for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) >> sum += i; >> >> clock_t end = clock(); >> double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; >> printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); } >> >> ./a.out >> >> time_spent=2.370234 >> >> That is C being 16 times faster ... >> >>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:49, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, this sounds wrong (C++ should be (a lot) faster on such micro benchmarks). >>> >>> You should exclude the executable startup time. >>> >>> In Pharo you should do [ .. ] timeToRun and something similar in C/C++. >>> >>>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:41, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> in multiplication pharo is around 2 times slower compared to C++ >>>> >>>> #include <stdio.h> >>>> >>>> int main() >>>> { >>>> double x=1; >>>> for(double i; i<1000000000 ; ++i) >>>> { >>>> x = 0.1*i; >>>> } >>>> >>>> return 1; >>>> } >>>> >>>> time ./testMul >>>> 3.13 real 3.13 user 0.00 sys >>>> >>>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 1. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := 0.1 * each]" >>>> 1 >>>> 4.97 real 4.48 user 0.09 sys >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:16 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> So I was bored and decided to test how fast pharo is compared to C++. >>>> >>>> so I tested addition >>>> >>>> C++ version: >>>> >>>> #include <stdio.h> >>>> >>>> int main() >>>> { >>>> double x=0; >>>> while(x<1000000000) >>>> { >>>> x = x+1; >>>> } >>>> >>>> return 1; >>>> } >>>> >>>> time ./test1 >>>> 2.84 real 2.84 user 0.00 sys >>>> >>>> Pharo version: >>>> >>>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 0. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := x +1]" >>>> 1 >>>> 2.09 real 1.94 user 0.08 sys >>>> >>>> Pharo is +50% faster than C++ ... o_O ... that's suprising, I assume here Pharo VM probably does some kind of optimisation. >>>> >>> >> >> >> >

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo

by Dimitris Chloupis

Yes I stand corrected, with unsigned ints and optimisations turned on the time for C++ for multiplication drops from 3.13 to 0.39 thats an almost 10 times speed up , with doubles and max optimisation on its 0.9 Yes I am using Pharo 32 bit. I think so, unless vmLatest now downloads Pharo 64 bit. So the conclusion is that C++ without the max optimisation on is almost as fast as Pharo. Still 10 times diffirence is not bad at all , on the other hand CPython3 on my iMac needs 118 seconds to finish the multiplication and for some strange reason the python 2.7 included with macos just hangs there forever. So Cpython at for me appears around 30-20 times slower... which is kinda weird too. But then Cpython has no JIT VM.

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How to edit an element with Teapot

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Do want to build/use a REST API or do you want to build a simple web app ? I thought you wanted to do the first. The second is easy too, ZnDefaultServerDelegate>>#formTest1: #formTest2: #formTest3: are doing that (in a single handler, generating the page, using the submitted info as well. > On 17 Dec 2016, at 15:13, stepharong <stepharong(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Ok I read it but I do not understand how I should do it ;( > > With teapot or Zinc I want to be able to serve an html string (containing a form probably with a submit button) that will let the user to > pass some data and that the server can access this data and invoke a method. > > I want to get the same behavior than textInput in seaside > > My user has only one web browser. > May be this is obvious in the chapter but I do not see it. > > Stef

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 17 Dec 2016, at 14:28, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: > > This is not a comparable benchmark as the sum in Smalltalk keeps on growing and ends up doing LargeInteger calculations and thus the speed loss, while the c the int just rolls over. > > Sum in Smalltalk = 500000000500000000 > Sum in C = -1243309312 Yes, I realised afterwards. Shame on me. Now, in Pharo 64 bits: [ | sum | sum:= 0. 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. self assert: sum = (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) ] timeToRun. "0:00:00:03.379" (1e9 * (1e9 + 1) / 2) < SmallInteger maxVal. "true" So there the speed difference is way smaller. > Best regards, > Henrik > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 2:15 PM > To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo > > Like this: > > [ | sum | sum:= 0. 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. sum ] timeToRun. > > "0:00:00:39.305" > > cat bench.c > > #include <stdio.h> > #include <time.h> > > int main() { > clock_t begin = clock(); > > int sum = 0; > for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) > sum += i; > > clock_t end = clock(); > double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; > printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent); } > > ./a.out > > time_spent=2.370234 > > That is C being 16 times faster ... > >> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:49, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> Hmm, this sounds wrong (C++ should be (a lot) faster on such micro benchmarks). >> >> You should exclude the executable startup time. >> >> In Pharo you should do [ .. ] timeToRun and something similar in C/C++. >> >>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:41, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> in multiplication pharo is around 2 times slower compared to C++ >>> >>> #include <stdio.h> >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>> double x=1; >>> for(double i; i<1000000000 ; ++i) >>> { >>> x = 0.1*i; >>> } >>> >>> return 1; >>> } >>> >>> time ./testMul >>> 3.13 real 3.13 user 0.00 sys >>> >>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 1. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := 0.1 * each]" >>> 1 >>> 4.97 real 4.48 user 0.09 sys >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:16 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> So I was bored and decided to test how fast pharo is compared to C++. >>> >>> so I tested addition >>> >>> C++ version: >>> >>> #include <stdio.h> >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>> double x=0; >>> while(x<1000000000) >>> { >>> x = x+1; >>> } >>> >>> return 1; >>> } >>> >>> time ./test1 >>> 2.84 real 2.84 user 0.00 sys >>> >>> Pharo version: >>> >>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 0. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := x +1]" >>> 1 >>> 2.09 real 1.94 user 0.08 sys >>> >>> Pharo is +50% faster than C++ ... o_O ... that's suprising, I assume here Pharo VM probably does some kind of optimisation. >>> >> > > >

Dec. 17, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How to edit an element with Teapot

by stepharong

Ok I read it but I do not understand how I should do it ;( With teapot or Zinc I want to be able to serve an html string (containing a form probably with a submit button) that will let the user to pass some data and that the server can access this data and invoke a method. I want to get the same behavior than textInput in seaside My user has only one web browser. May be this is obvious in the chapter but I do not see it. Stef

Dec. 17, 2016