Hi Serge, I didn't knew that paper. You are right, in the community analysis they seem to compare Bio* projects against Pharo and not BioSmalltalk. That's weird because the paper is very clear about BioSmalltalk is the name of the library and Pharo is the supporting platform. I will contact the authors because the BioSmalltalk community is very small and I expected that when developing the library. On the other side they use 99% Pharo code... I remember someone asking me about how to do in BioSmalltalk the task proposed in the paper. I answered the analysis is strange, because the flat-file they are parsing (intended for human reading) can be downloaded in XML and parsed easily with a XML pull parser. Or even ASN.1. BioSmalltalk is faster for some tasks, for example reading/filtering BLAST alignments. I have put special emphasis on that. Maybe I should prepare a post comparing speeds for additional tasks. Thank you for the link. Cheers, Hernán 2016-11-30 11:31 GMT-03:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>:
Hi Hernan,
apparently BioSmalltalk is the faster in the field of Bio* platforms (BioPerl, BioPython, BioJava, ...) and the more trendy: http://www.ijcseonline.org/spl_pub_paper/PID%2023.pdf
I would love to believe in that ;-)
But if you read carefully the paper, you will found that authors has made a dramatic mistake ... They think that Pharo was the name of BioSmalltalk ... and then they compare with Google Trends, Pharo against BioPerl, BioPython, ...
Anyways the statement that BioSmalltalk is the faster is maybe true :-) Hernan did you know this paper ?
Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/