Am 31.08.2005 um 20:41 schrieb Herbert König:
Hello David,
DPH> Why do you say this? There are ways and means to deal with this - if it DPH> is actually a significant problem. Time saved in DPH> development/maintenance may mitigate this, also.
Software being said to be sluggish is in a big distvantage. In road design where I plan to use squeak commercially there is a speed difference between 3.6 and 3.7 and not using accessors and pushing methods down the hierarchy makes a difference.
I don't think that the speed difference 3.6 vs. 3.7 due to using accessors.
I am sure that the morphic cleanup changes (isEmpty vs. direct testing and so on) had some influence, but the majority of the speed-loss is due tue the different window look, esp. the buttons with gradients, using true-type for window titles and stuff like that.
In 3.9, performance is now better than 3.7, but not yet as fast as 3.6.
Overall, I have the feeling that real improvments in performance will not come from micro-optimizing, but from using better algorithms and better concepts. And the first step of this is cleaning up.
And though I like LookEnhancements I always notice the speed penalty.
On my system, 3.9 with LookEnhancements is *faster* than the 3.9 without (3.9a6686 vs. 3.9a6684). Can you make a test? Would be interesting to see.
Marcus