Recent Morphic/Alice changes?
Andreas.Raab at gmx.de
Andreas.Raab at gmx.de
Thu Nov 28 23:24:40 UTC 2002
Hi Bill,
> is there a way to refactor Alice so the classes would
> not be necessary, and therefore would not need to be recompiled?
There certainly is, but I have never looked at it. Mostly because
Wonderlands are the kind of
environments where you don't create hundreds of actors dynamically. I don't
know what exactly you
are doing but I would recommend looking at what class reshapes take place
and why. Most likely, a lot
can be done just by reordering things a little.
Cheers,
- Andreas
> Andreas,
>
> A little profiling confirms your suspicion: it's full gc's. It even
> (especially!!!<g>) explains a pause from something that does not
> create new objects.
>
> There is good and bad in this for me. The good new is that I don't
> need the affected application. It's an old game concept that I
> revived as a test of Squeak. The bad news is that this is a
> situation in which lack of performance equates to lack of
> functionality. With the current perfomance hits, I doubt the game
> would be playable. I realize that I could bypass Alice, but then I'd
> end up with my own buggy version of WonderlandActor.
>
> I would not argue for removal of essential gc's from the class
> builder, but is there a way to refactor Alice so the classes would
> not be necessary, and therefore would not need to be recompiled?
> The only other thing that comes to mind would be to allow bundles
> of activity so that multiple changes could be followed by one full gc
> at the end of block. But, I think it would be better to elminate the
> dependence on creating new classes, or to find another fix of the
> classbuilder that does not require the gc's.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bill
>
> Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> bills at anest4.anest.ufl.edu
> (352) 846-1285
>
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|