worden.john at gmail.com
Fri Nov 13 10:35:08 UTC 2009
Thanks Herbert for tip on timing.
For interest I tried. The results were.
Squeak 5600 - 5800 milliseconds
Pharo 5400 - 5500 milliseconds
Cuis 200 - 500 milliseconds
So there was a factor of 10 in it which I why I noticed I guess.
2009/11/12 Herbert König <herbertkoenig at gmx.net>
> Hi John,
> JW> Absolute beginner playing with smalltalk. I have a simple
> JW> program that opens a number of text files, plays with data closes
> JW> files and gives a count of things in the files. (Its actually my
> JW> Squeak version of the Cincom VW Tutorial). I have run it on
> JW> Squeak, Pharo and Cuis images. What suprised me was the difference
> JW> in speeds. I haven't done tried to time it (I should do that or
> in case you don't know how:
> Time millisecondsToRun: [your code goes here]
> returns what it says.
> JW> at least work out how to) but Squeak and Pharo take about the same
> JW> time whereas Cuis is significantly quicker. I know its a cut down
> JW> image but the difference is remarkable. Is this to be expected?
> If you talk about files, a significant part of the time might be spent
> in the OS which depends on cacheing.
> So unless there is significant processing, file access might dominate
> (and invalidate) the measured times.
> Cuis has removed and cleaned up things which tends to speed things up
> but usually not to a noticeable degree. Even if you hit a
> significantly sped up method, such results should not be generalized.
> Cuis is not advertised for higher speed but for cleaner code, less
> bulk and better looks. IMHO that is.
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Beginners