Doug Way wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2004, at 2:59 AM, danielv at tx.technion.ac.il wrote:
> 
> 
>>So, why don't you write a test for it?
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>testForSlugishness
>> self assert: [Browser open "and other stuff you do"] timeToRun < "some
>>reasonable delay for that"
>>
>>True, this will fail for slow machines, but that reasonable.
> 
> 

> Actually, better yet you could have a quick tinyBenchmarks test as part 
> of the testForSlugishness to use as a sort of baseline for machine 
> speed.  Then, you could test that "Browser open" or whatever only takes 
> a certain amount of time relative to your sends/sec speed, so it should 
> be roughly equivalent on slow & fast machines.

There is a problem with timeToRun: it is not independent from other
running Squeak or system processes.
Better would be a measurement of executed bytecodes and message sends
for just this test, which should be independent from interrupts. This is
especially important for tests, which mustn't fail.

Any idea?


Greetings
Stephan

> 
> - Doug
> 
> 
> 
>>Daniel
>>
>>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>Diego
>>>
>>>I found that in the 6272 image (may be before) the UI is reacting more
>>>slowly than with
>>>previous 3.8 unstable images.
>>>Does anybody else see that?
>>>Diego have you noticed something too?
>>>I'm on mac.
>>>
>>>Stef
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
   "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
    You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
    -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3