2009/7/8 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> In same way, i heard from multiple people here, when i asked: why you
>> never try/use Pharo , the answer was:
>>  - i can't use OB, it is alien to me.
>> What is interesting, that as to me, the default Squeak browser and OB
>> are pretty much the same.
>> So there is another side of this: an inertia of people who mastered
>> something & using it , and don't see any reasons why things need to be
>> changed in any way.
>
> I think this particular question may have a different answer. I tried OB on
> Pharo when I was looking into some FFI troubles. The main noticable
> difference was *incredible* sluggishness. Every single action was greeted
> with a 2-5 seconds pause. I kid you not. Granted, my computer isn't exactly
> the fastest, but those were all actions where with the regular Squeak
> browser I feel no noticable delay whatsoever.
>
> The other thing I noticed was that OB did not come across as very robust.
> Several trivial actions (like opening a context menu in the code pane) would
> just blow up.
>
> If I'd have to guess, then the sluggishness of OB is a major hindrance in
> its acceptance. As you say, since the browsers are so similar there is
> really little reason to choose the slow one ;-)
>

Well, i hope that will be fixed eventually by developers.
>From other side, i like a new stuff , added to OB , like icons, tests
integration (so you can run test methods by just clicking on method in
method pane) and many others.
So, you have to pay the price (extra cycles) for extra features. Of
couse, the price should be kept reasonable :)

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.