December 2016 - Pharo-users

PUnQLite/Voyage-UnQLite Unicode Problem

by Udo Schneider

All, I'm currently dabbling with Voyage-UnQLite. However I noticed that Unicode strings do not seem to be supported. Just try the following "testcase": repo := VOUnQLiteRepository on: (FileLocator temp / 'db'). s := (Character codePoint: 512) asString -> nil. repo save: s. My initial reaction was to make sure that strings are always converted to/from UTF-8 when using PUnQLite. However I'm not sure if this is something that needs to be addressed on the PUnQLite or Voyage-UnQLite level. CU, Udo

Dec. 17, 2016

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

by Henrik Nergaard

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 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 ClÃ©ment Bera

If I am correct, when you do: double x=0; while(x<1000000000) { x = x+1; } C++ compiles the + to double operation. In Pharo, this code: |x| x := 0. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x := x +1] is using SmallInteger operations. The code you wrote is fully inlined in Cog's JIT (no message sends). Hence you're comparing double operation versus int operations. That's why Pharo is faster. Pharo should be a little bit slower than C++ if it would use int32 because of the 4 Smallinteger checks it requires for the inlined <= and the 2 inlined +. I am a bit surprised the C++ compiler does not entirely remove the loop as it is side-effect free. Are you compiling in O2 ? For *, firstly you're comparing this time double arithmetic vs double arithmetic, where Pharo is slower due to boxing/unboxing, and secondly Cogit does not inline the *, so there is a message send in the loop in Pharo, leading to worse performance. Are you benchmarking on Pharo 64 bits ? Because this kind of double benchmarks should be way faster on the 64 bits VM than the 32 bits one. Anyway, for benchmarking we normally use the bench suite here: http://squeak.org/codespeed/ and micro-benchmarks are always questionable. On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:41 PM, 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 Henrik Nergaard

You are comparing two different types here, double vs a 32 bit integer, and program starting time should be excluded. Something like: In playground: Smalltalk garbageCollect. [ 0 to: 16r0FFFFFFF do: [ :x | ] ] timeToRun. â try switch the 0 to 0.0 to have the iterations be on a float, leads to much slower timeâ C++ (compile with -std=c++11) #include <iostream> #include <chrono> int main(){ using namespace std::chrono; auto start = high_resolution_clock::now(); for(uint32_t x{0}; x <= 0x0FFFFFFF; ++x){ } auto end = high_resolution_clock::now(); auto ms = duration_cast<milliseconds>(end - start).count(); std::cout << "time used: " << ms << "ms" << std::endl; } Best regards, Henrik From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Chloupis Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 1:16 PM To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> Subject: [Pharo-users] [Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo 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 Sven Van Caekenberghe

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 Michal Balda

The conditions are unfair: the C++ version uses double, whereas the Pharo version uses Integers. Change the C++ version to use int and then report the results :-). Michal On 17.12.2016 13:16, Dimitris Chloupis 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 Sven Van Caekenberghe

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

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

[Stupid Benchmarks] C++ vs Pharo

by Dimitris Chloupis

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 Stephane Ducasse

Tx for the pointer. I was planning to read the seaside implementation to understand. I read your Simple Web App but it was not there, nor in Teapot, nor in tinyblog (obviously). So I will have a look at the one. I think that al the docs are only showing displaying information while inputting is the other half of the story. On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > I meant section 11 of the Zinc HTTP Server chapter > > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/EnterprisePharoBook/ > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/book-result/Zinc-HTTP-Server/ > Zinc-HTTP-Server.html > > > On 17 Dec 2016, at 11:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > Chapter 11 : Scripting a REST Web Service with Zinc > > > > of the Enterprise book > > > >> On 17 Dec 2016, at 11:31, stepharong <stepharong(a)free.fr> wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> This is probably a stupid question but I dare to ask it. > >> > >> I have a tiny teapot application (based on the library example) and I > would like to let the use add an item or edit an item. > >> I do want to force the user to do it via the request path with a post > or that way > >> > >> ZnClient new > >> url: 'http://localhost:8080/books/1'; > >> formAt: 'author' put: 'SquareBracketAssociates'; > >> formAt: 'title' put: 'Pharo For The Enterprise'; put > >> > >> I know how to do it in Seaside but I feel spoiled because I do not know > how to do it in plain html to serve it with Teapot. > >> > >> I noticed that in none of our chapters (Teapot, ZnApplication chapter, > tinyblog-teapot, tinyblog-seaside) shows how to do it. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > >> > > > > >

Dec. 17, 2016