[squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean))

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Jul 9 17:17:44 UTC 2009


Gary Chambers wrote:
> That'd be OB then.
> With the StandardToolSet, Pharo0.1Core-10371, on a 2.8 Quad I get 303 ms...

That sounds about right. And yes, it's obviously an OB issue - this 
whole discussion started out by Igor wondering why people don't like 
using OB. I think a major part of the answer is just that.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> Regards, Gary
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:40 PM
> Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The 
> future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT 
> licenseclean))
> 
> 
>> David Corking wrote:
>>> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
>>> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
>>> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
>>> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
>>> perform better.)
>>>
>>> To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any
>>> code profiling done on this issue?
>>
>> I haven't done any real profiling. But here is a starting point:
>>
>> [ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
>>
>> On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 
>> 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list