I've changed 100 to 10000 in this method, but I haven't done any  
systematic tuning...

I'm sure, the simulator could be optimized. But is it important that  
it is fast? I mean, nobody is going to actually use Squeak like this.  
For me the only (but important) value is to use the debugger and  
change the implementation on the fly.

Adrian



On Oct 25, 2007, at 18:38 , John M McIntosh wrote:

>
> On Oct 25, 2007, at 2:26 AM, Mathieu Suen wrote:
>
>> For me the image was terribly slow so unusable.
>> But theoretically it should work on 3.9/3.10
>>
>> 	Mth
>
> Ah slow, and time...
> I was wondering if the following assumptions and logic still held  
> true today and what the side effects are?
>
> InterpreterSimulator>>>ioMSecs
> 	"Return the value of the millisecond clock."
> 	"NOT.  Actually, we want something a lot slower and, for exact  
> debugging,
> 	something more repeatable than real time.  IO have an idea: use  
> the byteCount..."
>
> 	^ byteCount // 100
> 	
> "At 20k bytecodes per second, this gives us aobut 200 ticks per  
> second, or about 1/5 of what you'd expect for the real time clock.   
> This should still service events at one or two per second"
>
>
>
> --
> ====================================================================== 
> =====
> John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com>
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http:// 
> www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> ====================================================================== 
> =====
>
>
>