Hi,

This is what I tried on Squeak 3.7 :

Time millisecondsToRun: [
seq := OrderedCollection new.
1000 timesRepeat: [seq add: (Point x: 0 y: 0)].
20000 timesRepeat: [1 to: 1000 do: [:n | seq at: n put: (Point x: 0 y: 0)]]]

I repaced Point zero with Point x: 0 y: 0 (I don't know VisualWorks).

The result is near 18450 on a Pentium 4, 3.40GHz HT.

Compared to 1 second, it is not so fast ... (or did I make a mistake ?)

Joseph


----- 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, December 02, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Object turnover.


> An interesting read here is the following:
>
> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/travis/blogView?showComments=true&entry=3277556678
>
> Squeak isn't quite as fast if you run the benchmarks (though for largely 
> non-GC related reasons) but by and large this should get you a feeling 
> that dealing with lots and lots of objects (and cleaning up afterwards) is 
> something that these systems (incl. Squeak) have been specifically 
> designed for. It is really, REALLY fast.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tim Rowledge" <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Object turnover.
>
>
>> Ryan Zerby <tahognome at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Should I worry about having a program that makes a large number of
>>> temporary objects?
>> Not in the sense of having to worry about the system not being able to
>> cope. VM implementors over the ages have done your worrying for you!
>>
>> However, it is often the case that a little fiddling with algorithms
>> can improve things; it's time for you to start using the
>> TimeProfileBrowser to see where your time goes. Look it up in the
>> browser and start playing.
>>
>>> planet position: (Point r: rho degree: theta) + self center.
>>
>>>
>>> This creates a lot of points that get discarded on the next iteration
>>> of step.
>> No great problem; the gc will recycle them almost immediately. The time
>> 'wasted' is simply that you might be creating them unneccessarily, say
>> if the algorithm can be squeezed a bit.
>>
>> If you have a large number of planets in mind you might even benefit
>> from the sort of low down underhanded cleverness that Yoshiki has
>> recently used to do very fast array processing in the cellular automata
>> morphs. By putting the coordinates into FloatArrays it is possible to
>> get thousands of cells bouncing around; at least on machines with
>> floatingpoint hardware like I don't have :-(
>>
>>
>> tim
>> --
>> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
>> The program is absolutely right; therefore the computer must be wrong.
>>
>
>
>