<div>I made the changes suggested by Bert and used StandardFileStream. Yes it fixes the speed issue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As I said previously this has been interesting but it does leave me with mixed feelings which while off topic Ill express. As I said at the start of this I am a beginner. I can write a simple program and make it work and have done (PHP/Python/VisBasic/VBA).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I came to Squeak/Smalltalk and started having a play. There is something addictive about it but at the same time there are things like the speed issue above that don't make it "easy" for the learner. As an exercise I started to convert the excellent Cincom VW Tutorial to work in Squeak and at the same time I was converting it into Python. End result is that I had less difficulty getting it to work in Python than simply converting to Squeak. I wasn't expecting that. (For interest the other big problem I had, in addition to the speed one, was with the CrLf handling)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am <u>not</u> trying to compare one language to another. Neither is it a judgement call on whats right or wrong all have their fit I'm sure. My question is whether people feel Squeak really is suitable for someone who just enjoys scripting simple programs? I can see the value in it from an educational perspective but for someone like me (who to be honest doesn't even want to worry about what things like UTF8 Support are all about) is it a good choice?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>John</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:26 AM, John Worden <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:worden.john@gmail.com">worden.john@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>Thanks to all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Interesting and educational.</div>
<div> </div><font color="#888888">
<div>John</div></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Bert Freudenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de" target="_blank">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><br>On 14.11.2009, at 23:07, John Worden wrote:<br><br>> So are you saying that my example is slow because of the time taken to process the text data files in Squeak? (I was using 3.10)<br>><br>> Not that it matters in this case but how would I work around this if it were a real application that needed to handle data in this way?<br>
><br>> John<br><br></div>If you do, e.g.,<br><br> FileStream readOnlyFileNamed: myFileName<br><br>it creates a MultiByteFileStream nowadays (see #concreteStream). It would be nice if we could just set a no-op converter in a MultiByteFileStream. However, that class has not been optimized for speed yet, even without an expensive converter it is much slower. It reads characters one-by-one instead of block-wise, which obviously isn't speedy exactly, as you noticed.<br>
<br>Instead of the abstract FileStream use the stream class you want explicitly. StandardFileStream is the old class that does no conversion. So you would open your file like this instead:<br><br> StandardFileStream readOnlyFileNamed: myFileName<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>- Bert -<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Beginners mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org" target="_blank">Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners" target="_blank">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>