Which brings me right back to Simon Kirk's post a few days ago...!

Here's some food for thought, perhaps:

http://www.robvens.nl/en/blog/The-Smalltalk-Trap.htmlhttp://www.robvens.nl/en/blog/The-Smalltalk-Trap.html

Cheers, Simon

I'm not saying everything should be free, though. It's just an interesting problem...

Rob

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:

2008/9/25 Chris Kassopulo ckasso@sprynet.com:

...

http://www.lesser-software.com/en/content/products/lswvst/lswvst.htm

It would be nice to look at it (LSWV). So many cool features. Too bad its proprietary. :(

-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Hi!,

Diversity of bussiness models is granted by nature. All bussiness models are granted to coexist. The reduction of medium/small bussiness space in the last decade (canivalization made by big companies and free-workers reducing the small-bussiness space) can revert in the next years (I hope :-) Now, we can see some actors reacting to current idealized/abstracted/reduced world. To make the products of our work free is not the best way to hide sub-emploiment. (no offense)

You managers (and wanna-be managers) step forward, any ideas for how the larger part of Smalltalk community could benefit?

Diverse options to make bussiness is important to managers to select the best model for each production context. IMO, Smalltalk community do not need to be promoted, it is a concecuence or our shared activities (it is not an object :).

cheers, Ale.

Jason Johnson escreveu:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:

...

2008/9/25 Chris Kassopulo ckasso@sprynet.com:

...

http://www.lesser-software.com/en/content/products/lswvst/lswvst.htm

It would be nice to look at it (LSWV). So many cool features. Too bad its proprietary. :(

-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Is the cost prohibitive? Dolphin wasn't free, but it was really cheap and a quality product. Keep in mind that while programming languages have been largely "commoditized" the best implementations of many languages still cost money. E.g. you want the best C compiler? It's not GCC. Buy the Intel compiler and watch your code run twice as fast.

Big shortcoming of Dolphin is that it is not cross platform (I mean, it only runs in Micro$oft Window$). I do prefer Cincom suite.

But I felt like this list is for squeak development discussions... And there are lots of issues in this field (squeak development). Starting to discuss how to make its VM preemptive, then real multitasking, then really suited for distributed processing...

Philippe Marschall wrote:

2008/9/26, Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081@gmail.com:

...

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:

...

2008/9/25 Chris Kassopulo ckasso@sprynet.com:

...

http://www.lesser-software.com/en/content/products/lswvst/lswvst.htm

It would be nice to look at it (LSWV). So many cool features. Too bad its proprietary. :(

-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Is the cost prohibitive? Dolphin wasn't free, but it was really cheap and a quality product. Keep in mind that while programming languages have been largely "commoditized" the best implementations of many languages still cost money. E.g. you want the best C compiler? It's not GCC. Buy the Intel compiler and watch your code run twice as fast.

Let me preface this by saying that I support free software, and use it in preference to proprietary software when possible. However, I disagree with much of what you say.

If you define best best as "longest bar in some benchmark".

I define best as "producing the best performance for the program that I am interested in compiling".

Intel doesn't manage to charge serious money for their compiler because it is better on some synthetic benchmark but worse in the real world. Maybe GCC has mostly caught up with 4.3, but there's no doubt that ICC has traditionally generated faster code. I don't have extensive/varied personal experience with ICC, but if you compile Squeak with it on Intel, you'll see a 20% speed-up on macro benchmarks.

If you want to run your software only on Intel chips, no AMD, no Motorola, no Sun, no ....

First, it's simply not true that Intel's compiler doesn't work for AMD. After surfing around for 15min or so, I learned: - at various times in the past, AMD chose ICC as the compiler they used to generate SPEC benchmarks. - there are numerous personal accounts where ICC generates the fastest code for AMD for their pet application.

Typically, Intel CPUs have a higher percentage improvement by using ICC instead of GCC, but AMD CPUs also benefit.

Also, many applications don't target PowerPC, Sparc, or ARM. For desktop apps, x86 is the name of the game. I don't feel limited by using an x86-only compiler, especially since I can write my code to compile with a different compiler for other platforms.

If you want to put up with all kinds of trouble and issues compiling software that was written with GCC in mind like all the GNU/Linux software.

That's an interesting angle. Many Free software lovers would consider code that uses specific features of Microsoft's C compiler to be broken. I generally agree with them; unless there is a good reason for it (and there sometimes is, just as it sometimes makes sense to write x86 assembly), compiler-specific code is a bug. Why should it be any different for GNU-specific code?

To me, it seems like FUD to disparage a compiler for inability to compile non-standard code.

Maybe even Squeak thanks to gnuify.

No, gnuify transforms the code to make it run faster on GCC, but if you don't apply gnuify, it will compile fine with other compilers.

BTW, Windows Squeak VMs are still built using GCC 2.9.5 becuase it produces faster code than 4.x (don't know if 4.3 has been tried). The moral: if you care about performance, run your own benchmarks. Then, you can balance observed performance against other factors like cost, portability, free-software ideology, etc.

Cheers, Josh

Yeah, then ICC might be the "best".

Cheers Philippe

Philippe Marschall wrote:

2008/9/27 Joshua Gargus schwa@fastmail.us:

...

Philippe Marschall wrote:

2008/9/26, Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081@gmail.com:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:

2008/9/25 Chris Kassopulo ckasso@sprynet.com:

http://www.lesser-software.com/en/content/products/lswvst/lswvst.htm

It would be nice to look at it (LSWV). So many cool features. Too bad its proprietary. :(

-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Is the cost prohibitive? Dolphin wasn't free, but it was really cheap and a quality product. Keep in mind that while programming languages have been largely "commoditized" the best implementations of many languages still cost money. E.g. you want the best C compiler? It's not GCC. Buy the Intel compiler and watch your code run twice as fast.

Let me preface this by saying that I support free software, and use it in preference to proprietary software when possible. However, I disagree with much of what you say.

If you define best best as "longest bar in some benchmark".

I define best as "producing the best performance for the program that I am interested in compiling".

Intel doesn't manage to charge serious money for their compiler because it is better on some synthetic benchmark but worse in the real world. Maybe GCC has mostly caught up with 4.3, but there's no doubt that ICC has traditionally generated faster code. I don't have extensive/varied personal experience with ICC, but if you compile Squeak with it on Intel, you'll see a 20% speed-up on macro benchmarks.

If you want to run your software only on Intel chips, no AMD, no Motorola, no Sun, no ....

First, it's simply not true that Intel's compiler doesn't work for AMD. After surfing around for 15min or so, I learned:

• at various times in the past, AMD chose ICC as the compiler they used to

generate SPEC benchmarks.

• there are numerous personal accounts where ICC generates the fastest code

for AMD for their pet application.

Typically, Intel CPUs have a higher percentage improvement by using ICC instead of GCC, but AMD CPUs also benefit.

Also, many applications don't target PowerPC, Sparc, or ARM. For desktop apps, x86 is the name of the game. I don't feel limited by using an x86-only compiler, especially since I can write my code to compile with a different compiler for other platforms.

If you want to put up with all kinds of trouble and issues compiling software that was written with GCC in mind like all the GNU/Linux software.

That's an interesting angle. Many Free software lovers would consider code that uses specific features of Microsoft's C compiler to be broken. I generally agree with them; unless there is a good reason for it (and there sometimes is, just as it sometimes makes sense to write x86 assembly), compiler-specific code is a bug. Why should it be any different for GNU-specific code?

Such things happen automatically if you compile with only one compiler.

Right, but that doesn't make it a good thing. We do agree that it's not a good thing to accidentally make choices that limit Squeak to a single compiler, don't we? If not, why is taking choice away a good thing?

You can observe it every time a new GCC version comes out that is more standard conformant a lot of software breaks.

We're not talking about the steady improvements in standard C/C++ compliance. We're talking about intentional, compiler-specific extensions that are not part of the C/C++ standards. That's why it's called "gnuify" not "standardize" :-).

You can also see it with Squeak. A lot of code has empty statements and temps declared in a too wide scope. Once we get a new compiler that supports closures or you compile it with a more standard conformant compiler, that code has to be updated.

I'm not sure what we're talking about any more. I initially responded to a message from you that seemed very dismissive of Jason's point, namely that in particular circumstances, it may make sense to pay for your language implementation. For some reason, I felt compelled to argue that despite your somewhat glib dismissal, there exist real situations where it makes sense to use ICC (therefore lending support to Jason's more general claim).

Given this context (which is of course not necessarily what the conversation meant to you, subjectively), what are we talking about here? :-)

...

To me, it seems like FUD to disparage a compiler for inability to compile non-standard code.

Maybe even Squeak thanks to gnuify.

No, gnuify transforms the code to make it run faster on GCC, but if you don't apply gnuify, it will compile fine with other compilers.

But slower.

Squeak compiled with GCC is faster when gnuify is used. But Squeak compiled with ICC is faster still. On what do you base your assertion that it is slower?

You don't actually pay for this, do you?

For my personal Squeaking, of course I wouldn't pay for ICC. But if someone is working for a company whose product is performance sensitive, why wouldn't they spend a few hundred dollars to improve performance as much as $10000s of engineering effort would, especially if it reduces time-to-market?

Cheers, Josh

Cheers Philippe

Avi Bryant wrote:

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Joshua Gargus schwa@fastmail.us wrote:

...

For my personal Squeaking, of course I wouldn't pay for ICC. But if someone is working for a company whose product is performance sensitive, why wouldn't they spend a few hundred dollars to improve performance as much as $10000s of engineering effort would, especially if it reduces time-to-market?

Maybe I missed this, but - is there anything stopping someone from freely distributing binaries of Squeak that have been compiled with ICC?

IANAL, but no.

Here are the Intel tool page and the license agreement: http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/index.htm http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/346084.htm

The license doesn't talk about your code, only the materials that you obtained from Intel. An exception is the non-commercial license, so if Squeak.org decided to provide an ICC-compiled binary, we'd either have to: - clearly state that it's not for commercial use, or - cough up the money for licenses for the VM maintainers

Josh

Avi

2008/9/27 Joshua Gargus schwa@fastmail.us:

Philippe Marschall wrote:

2008/9/26, Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081@gmail.com:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:

2008/9/25 Chris Kassopulo ckasso@sprynet.com:

http://www.lesser-software.com/en/content/products/lswvst/lswvst.htm

It would be nice to look at it (LSWV). So many cool features. Too bad its proprietary. :(

-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Is the cost prohibitive? Dolphin wasn't free, but it was really cheap and a quality product. Keep in mind that while programming languages have been largely "commoditized" the best implementations of many languages still cost money. E.g. you want the best C compiler? It's not GCC. Buy the Intel compiler and watch your code run twice as fast.

Let me preface this by saying that I support free software, and use it in preference to proprietary software when possible. However, I disagree with much of what you say.

If you define best best as "longest bar in some benchmark".

I define best as "producing the best performance for the program that I am interested in compiling".

Intel doesn't manage to charge serious money for their compiler because it is better on some synthetic benchmark but worse in the real world. Maybe GCC has mostly caught up with 4.3, but there's no doubt that ICC has traditionally generated faster code. I don't have extensive/varied personal experience with ICC, but if you compile Squeak with it on Intel, you'll see a 20% speed-up on macro benchmarks.

If you want to run your software only on Intel chips, no AMD, no Motorola, no Sun, no ....

First, it's simply not true that Intel's compiler doesn't work for AMD. After surfing around for 15min or so, I learned:

• at various times in the past, AMD chose ICC as the compiler they used to

generate SPEC benchmarks.

• there are numerous personal accounts where ICC generates the fastest code

for AMD for their pet application.

Typically, Intel CPUs have a higher percentage improvement by using ICC instead of GCC, but AMD CPUs also benefit.

That's funny because AMD accuses Intel of checking for CPUID:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Fu...

page 40 and 41

Cheers Philippe

2008/9/28 Joshua Gargus schwa@fastmail.us:

Philippe Marschall wrote:

2008/9/27 Joshua Gargus schwa@fastmail.us:

Philippe Marschall wrote:

2008/9/26, Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081@gmail.com:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:

2008/9/25 Chris Kassopulo ckasso@sprynet.com:

http://www.lesser-software.com/en/content/products/lswvst/lswvst.htm

It would be nice to look at it (LSWV). So many cool features. Too bad its proprietary. :(

-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Is the cost prohibitive? Dolphin wasn't free, but it was really cheap and a quality product. Keep in mind that while programming languages have been largely "commoditized" the best implementations of many languages still cost money. E.g. you want the best C compiler? It's not GCC. Buy the Intel compiler and watch your code run twice as fast.

Let me preface this by saying that I support free software, and use it in preference to proprietary software when possible. However, I disagree with much of what you say.

If you define best best as "longest bar in some benchmark".

I define best as "producing the best performance for the program that I am interested in compiling".

Intel doesn't manage to charge serious money for their compiler because it is better on some synthetic benchmark but worse in the real world. Maybe GCC has mostly caught up with 4.3, but there's no doubt that ICC has traditionally generated faster code. I don't have extensive/varied personal experience with ICC, but if you compile Squeak with it on Intel, you'll see a 20% speed-up on macro benchmarks.

If you want to run your software only on Intel chips, no AMD, no Motorola, no Sun, no ....

First, it's simply not true that Intel's compiler doesn't work for AMD. After surfing around for 15min or so, I learned:

• at various times in the past, AMD chose ICC as the compiler they used to

generate SPEC benchmarks.

• there are numerous personal accounts where ICC generates the fastest code

for AMD for their pet application.

Typically, Intel CPUs have a higher percentage improvement by using ICC instead of GCC, but AMD CPUs also benefit.

That's funny because AMD accuses Intel of checking for CPUID:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Fu...

page 40 and 41

Thanks for the link, I forgot about those allegations. Now that I have the search term "amd cpuid intel compiler", I find plenty of instances of people claiming to have independently discovered CPUID checks in code generated by ICC.

Given some of the things I've read (ICC generating ridiculously slow memcpys for AMD), I wonder how ICC can still be competitive with top compilers in HPC benchmarks like: http://www.cse.scitech.ac.uk/disco/Benchmarks/Opteron_compilers.pdf

It is easier to find anecdotes on less-official-looking pages like the following... http://www.altechnative.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6 ... where ICC does well.

Nevertheless, even though ICC does well on AMD, it could do better without the CPUID checks, and I hope that Intel had to pay AMD a lot of money for their actions. What was the result of AMD's litigation?

Not yet in court. Such things take time.

Cheers Philippe