Indeed.

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 6:17 PM
Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future 
ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean))


> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>