I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a
Cog and an non-cog?

--Hannes

On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
> 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 -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>