- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] [Ann] DragPanels: Floating palette windows with drag-and-drop in Morphic

by Stephan Eggermont

The export as SVG is indeed easy. I've added this helper class to CardsMorphic-StephanEggermont.56 It is not well-factored, and for now ignores font families. A class helper method to directly create a file: CardSvgWriter class>newFile: aString on: aCardWall ^self new write: aCardWall to: (aString asFileReference writeStream ) Write a SVG header, the size and then the contents of the cardwall, finally close the SVG. CardSvgWriter>>write: aWall to: aStream stream := aStream. stream nextPutAll: self fileHeader. self fileSized: aWall fullFrame. stream cr. aWall cardSpace submorphsDo: [ :column | self writeColumn: column]. stream nextPutAll: '</svg>'. stream close SVG is an XML format CardSvgWriter>>fileHeader ^'<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd"> ' Take the SVG size from the CardWall morph. Two namespaces are needed, the second one to make the images work. CardSvgWriter>>fileSized: frame stream nextPutAll: '<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" viewBox = "', (frame left) asString,' ', (frame top) asString,' ', (frame width) asString,' ', (frame height) asString,'" version = "1.1">' For each column, write the title and a gray background CardSvgWriter>>writeColumn: aColumn |background| stream nextPutAll: '<text x="',(aColumn left+2) asString,'" y="',(aColumn top+2) asString,'" fill="gray" font-size= "11">'. stream nextPutAll: aColumn title. stream nextPutAll: '</text>'. stream cr. background := aColumn submorphs first. stream nextPutAll: '<rect x= "',(background left) asString, '" y="',(background top) asString, '" width="',(background width) asString, '" height="',(background height) asString, '" fill="rgb(250,250,250)" />'. stream cr. background submorphsDo: [ :card | self writeCard: card ]. for each card, write its components CardSvgWriter>>writeCard: aCard self writeCardRectangle: aCard. self writeCardText: aCard. self writeCardImage: aCard The rectangle still has hardcoded border and borderColor CardSvgWriter>>writeCardRectangle: aCard stream nextPutAll: '<rect x= "',(aCard left) asString, '" y="',(aCard top) asString, '" width="',(aCard width) asString, '" height="',(aCard height) asString, '" stroke="','rgb(240,240,240)'"aCard borderColor asHTMLColor", '" stroke-width="', '1',"aCard borderWidth asString," '" fill="',aCard color asHTMLColor,'" />'. stream cr. Positioning of text is different in SVG and Morphic. In SVG, it is the left-bottom, vs left-top in Morphic. CardSVGWriter>>writeCardText: aCard stream nextPutAll: '<text x="',(aCard left+2) asString,'" y="',(aCard top+12) asString,'" fill="black" font-size= "10">'. stream nextPutAll: aCard title. stream nextPutAll: '</text>'. stream cr. The avatars are jpegs. they need to be base64 encoded. Here they are repeated for each card, they should be written once and linked. CardSVGWriter>writeCardImage: aCard aCard person ifNotNil: [ stream nextPutAll: '<image x="',(aCard right-32) asString,'" y="',(aCard bottom-32) asString,'" width="32" height="32" xlink:href="data:image/jpg;base64,', (ZnUtils encodeBase64: (ByteArray streamContents: [:s | PluginBasedJPEGReadWriter putForm: (AvatarCache default imageFor: aCard person) onStream: s])) ,'"/>'. stream cr]

June 30, 2015

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

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 30 Jun 2015, at 19:42, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Debian (host) "'4,855 per second'" > > Ubuntu (vbox) "'4,709 per second'" > > Win XP (vbox) "'504.099 per second'" > > The difference here is just one order of magnitude and not two... so maybe I should take apart CompileMethod>>putSource:inFile:withPreambule statement by statement. > > Is there some more convenient way to do it than wrap each statement in a block? Some way to profile a method or something. Open the Time Profiler and write your expression there is how you do analysis on the whole tree. It is not perfect but should help you find the bottleneck. > Peter > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:36, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think we've safely established that the bottleneck is disk operations. > > Let's take it one level down then, > > [ 'foo.txt' asFileReference in: [ :file | > file writeStreamDo: [ :out | > 3 timesRepeat: [ out << String loremIpsum ] ]. > file ensureDelete ] ] bench > > => "'512.595 per second'" > > We could experiment with variants, calling #flush, writing by character, adding buffering, etc, but this is a start. At least this takes the source code stuff out of the equations. > > > Quoting from previous emails... > > > > store := [ > > method putSource: code inFile: 2 > > withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; cr]. > > ]. > > > > machine 1: > > Debian 64bit (laptop) > > store bench. 41604 per second > > > > Windows XP 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > > store bench. 286 per second > > > > Ubuntu 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > > store bench. 36604 per second > > > > machine 2: > > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (desktop pc) > > store bench. 13 per second > > > > machine 3: > > Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (laptop) > > store bench. 454 per second > > > > all disks are HDD. > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > > Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? > > > > Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing performance. > > > > > > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > > > > Phil > > > > Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > >

June 30, 2015

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

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

Debian (host) "'4,855 per second'" Ubuntu (vbox) "'4,709 per second'" Win XP (vbox) "'504.099 per second'" The difference here is just one order of magnitude and not two... so maybe I should take apart CompileMethod>>putSource:inFile:withPreambule statement by statement. Is there some more convenient way to do it than wrap each statement in a block? Some way to profile a method or something. Peter On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:36, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think we've safely established that the bottleneck is disk operations. > > Let's take it one level down then, > > [ 'foo.txt' asFileReference in: [ :file | > file writeStreamDo: [ :out | > 3 timesRepeat: [ out << String loremIpsum ] ]. > file ensureDelete ] ] bench > > => "'512.595 per second'" > > We could experiment with variants, calling #flush, writing by character, > adding buffering, etc, but this is a start. At least this takes the source > code stuff out of the equations. > > > Quoting from previous emails... > > > > store := [ > > method putSource: code inFile: 2 > > withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; > nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; cr]. > > ]. > > > > machine 1: > > Debian 64bit (laptop) > > store bench. 41604 per second > > > > Windows XP 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > > store bench. 286 per second > > > > Ubuntu 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > > store bench. 36604 per second > > > > machine 2: > > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (desktop pc) > > store bench. 13 per second > > > > machine 3: > > Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (laptop) > > store bench. 454 per second > > > > all disks are HDD. > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < > marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> > wrote: > > Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? > > > > Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing > performance. > > > > > > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > > > > Phil > > > > Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit > : > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] how to get all the send to super?

by stepharo

Tx! Stef Le 28/6/15 17:40, Camille a Ã©crit : > >> On 28 Jun 2015, at 17:25, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr >> <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote: >> >> Hi >> I would like to study the use of super. >> Any idea how I can query them? > > Hi Stef, > > To get all methods that have a super send you can do: > > superSenders := CompiledMethod allInstances select: #sendsToSuper > > If you need more advanced search you can do it with RBParseTreeSearcher. > For exemple to get each super message node: > > superSends := OrderedCollection new. > searcher := RBParseTreeSearcher new matches: 'super ``@msg: ``@args' > do: [ :node :ans | superSends add: node ]. > superSenders do: [ :each | searcher executeTree: each ast ]. > superSends > > Camille > >> >> Stef >> >

June 30, 2015

does anybody use the AST navigation?

by stepharo

Hi guys does any of you use the AST code navigation? Because we could remove it. Stef

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] an elegant way to return a result

by stepharo

Le 30/6/15 14:39, jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de a Ã©crit : > Ah, Okay, you are mentioning the one and only one case in which this > could make sense.... ;-) > > Something like > > stream next ifNil: [^stream next]. so ugly. Please we should not teach how to do exception with blocks :) > > So there may be cases where the two sends do not return the same > result. But that is, of course, not what the OP suggested. > Nevertheless, I was too fast in criticizing ;-) > > I would consider code like that "less easy" to maintain, however. > > Nice thinking Kata ;-) > > Joachim > > > > Am 30.06.15 um 14:22 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano: >> ah yeah :) >> >> I assumed >> >> first "something aMsg" ~= second "something aMsgâ >> >> In case is the same, the correct way is as you say: >> >> ^ something aMsg ifNil: [ anotherResult ] >> >> (sorry, he :P) >> >>> On 30 Jun 2015, at 13:43, jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de wrote: >>> >>> Am 30.06.15 um 13:40 schrieb Peter UhnÃ¡k: >>>> Make sense if there's code in between. >>> not sure what you're saying. I mean, sending the message twice makes >>> sense if you already know the outcome? Hmmm... >>> >>>> something aMsg ifNil:[ ^ something aMsg ]. "yay for guards!" >>>> "much more code" >>>> ^ aNotherResult >>>> >>>> Peter >>> >>> -- >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de >>> Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de >>> D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com >>> Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1 >>> >>> >> >> > >

June 30, 2015

Modern Events Touch and Gestures in Pharo.

by stepharo

Thanks Thales for the sponsoring. https://youtu.be/eNrbH8A5nyY Stef and the rmod team

June 30, 2015

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

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:36, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we've safely established that the bottleneck is disk operations. Let's take it one level down then, [ 'foo.txt' asFileReference in: [ :file | file writeStreamDo: [ :out | 3 timesRepeat: [ out << String loremIpsum ] ]. file ensureDelete ] ] bench => "'512.595 per second'" We could experiment with variants, calling #flush, writing by character, adding buffering, etc, but this is a start. At least this takes the source code stuff out of the equations. > Quoting from previous emails... > > store := [ > method putSource: code inFile: 2 > withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; cr]. > ]. > > machine 1: > Debian 64bit (laptop) > store bench. 41604 per second > > Windows XP 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > store bench. 286 per second > > Ubuntu 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > store bench. 36604 per second > > machine 2: > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (desktop pc) > store bench. 13 per second > > machine 3: > Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (laptop) > store bench. 454 per second > > all disks are HDD. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? > > Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing performance. > > > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > > Phil > > Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : > 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. > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

June 30, 2015

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

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

I think we've safely established that the bottleneck is disk operations. Quoting from previous emails... store := [ method putSource: code inFile: 2 withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; cr]. ]. machine 1: Debian 64bit (laptop) store bench. 41604 per second Windows XP 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) store bench. 286 per second Ubuntu 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) store bench. 36604 per second machine 2: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (desktop pc) store bench. 13 per second machine 3: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (laptop) store bench. 454 per second all disks are HDD. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> > wrote: > >> Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? >> >> Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing >> performance. >> > > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > > >> Phil >> Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

June 30, 2015

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

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? > > Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing > performance. > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > Phil > Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : > >> 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. >> >> >> -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

June 30, 2015