Multithreading
Daniel Salama
dsalama at user.net
Mon Mar 28 13:59:06 UTC 2005
Avi,
I didn't mean to criticize on anyone (specially you) that corresponded
on that thread. When I mentioned that the question in performance
wasn't answered, I wasn't necessarily referring to the Transcript>>show
question.
As a matter of fact, you were the first one to tell me not to use
Transcript>>show. I ran the method with Transcript>>show and it took
over 34 minutes to execute. I ran the same code without the
Transcript>>show and it took just over 3 seconds. I certainly
appreciate the pointing out that Transcript>>show is a very expensive
method to call.
Now, I presented a scenario of an application I wrote with Ruby On
Rails and described the working environment where that application is
running. My hope was that may be someone would have experience with
Squeak/Seaside with a similar type of application or application that
operated under similar conditions to comment how that behaves in
Squeak/Seaside. As one of my first projects I want to work with in
Squeak/Seaside is the porting of this application with all of its data.
It's ambitious considering it to be a "first" project, but that's just
the way I find myself challenged to do things. I just wouldn't want to
go through all the effort to find out at the end that it simply won't
handle the volume (efficiently).
Thanks,
Daniel
On Mar 28, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Avi Bryant wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:05:52 -0500, Daniel Salama <dsalama at user.net>
> wrote:
>
>> As far as Seaside behavior in, I posted a similar question in
>> Seaside's
>> list
>> (http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside/2005-March/
>> 004685.html) but didn't really get an answer for it. I thank Avi for
>> letting me know that Transcript>>show is just about the worst thing I
>> could use to show status progress but no one really addressed my
>> question about Seaside/Squeak/GOODS performance (even though it's all
>> relative to application needs and application design).
>
> Daniel,
>
> Which question wasn't addressed? My point was that you were basing
> your concerns about performance on a flawed benchmark because of the
> involvement of the Transcript. I figured that if you then did
> further testing and were still concerned, you'd post with new details
> and we could address it then.
>
> The operative phrase in your message seems to be "makes me just want to
> not even try...". When you're talking about performance, trying is
> the only way to know anything. In my experience, most assumptions
> people make about the performance of the programs they write are
> wrong, period. Please, do some benchmarking before getting so
> worried.
>
> Avi
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|