2009/7/9 Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de:
Gary Chambers wrote:
That'd be OB then. With the StandardToolSet, Pharo0.1Core-10371, on a 2.8 Quad I get 303 ms...
That sounds about right. And yes, it's obviously an OB issue - this whole discussion started out by Igor wondering why people don't like using OB. I think a major part of the answer is just that.
I don't notice very big sluggines on my quad-core. Unless i open 5-6 windows.. :)
Cheers, - Andreas
Regards, Gary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Raab" andreas.raab@gmx.de To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:40 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean))
David Corking wrote:
I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1. (I used the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers or undocumented new features. Also, I don't know if other images perform better.)
To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any code profiling done on this issue?
I haven't done any real profiling. But here is a starting point:
[ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
Cheers, - Andreas