On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

>
> On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> Last month as an introduction to Squeak I did some performance testing for the creation of morphs, and a comparison between derivatives of Squeak.  An advance copy of one of the graphs was posted previously, but I have since updated the graphs and discussion based on feedback at that time.  I was going to tweak them some more but have been distracted by other priorities, and so I thought I would just post them now.  I hope they are of some interest.  I'll look at updating the graphs later, unless someone beats me too it in the comments.
>>
>> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/
>> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/
>> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/
>>
>> Its my first go at a blog (I hear all the cool kids are doin' it) - so any and all feedback on style and content is welcome.
>>
>> Cheers, Ben
>
> Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results you should run either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use Cog for all three).

Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download 
VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the 
releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster 
than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo 
and the interpreter vm for Squeak).


Levente

>
> - Bert -
>
>
>
>