[OT somewhat] personal notebook
Locked
 
|
I'm doing a personal journal/project notebook now using TiddlyWiki and
a few plugins. I keep it on a flash drive so that I can plug it in at home or work. I'm doing this instead of using a regular paper journal because I keep thinking that there must be a technical advantage, just as a word processing program has an advantage over a typewriter. The TiddlyWiki has a lot of things going for it from a technical point of view. It is easy to update, read, search, reorganize, be made available on the Internet, and operates locally with no server. It's small, currently only a couple hundred kilobytes including all the JavaScript code that makes it work. Of course it leverages all the code in the web browser (not included) to make this happen. A glaring thing that is missing from TiddlyWiki as compared to a paper notebook is that there is not an easy, direct way to create and view sketches or pictures. There is one variation of TiddlyWiki that includes SVG support, but it is set up to display charts and plots. There is no interactive drawing capability. Right now, I'm using an external paint program for this (leverage that external code again!), which works okay but adds more files to track and somewhat attenuates the creative flow of thought. I know that there have been a few attempts to do local personal journals in Squeak. What would be the best current Squeak example of a high function, technology-leveraged journal/notebook that is portable and easily and optionally Internet web-accessible? What might be a good approach to building the ultimate electronic notebook? I'm not talking about a finished published work here, but rather an interactive working partner. So what do you think? |
|
|
I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy
this little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/JavaScriptBenchmark.html Have fun - Dan |
Re: [OT somewhat] personal notebook
|
|
In reply to this post by David Faught
David Faught wrote:
> I'm doing a personal journal/project notebook now using TiddlyWiki and > a few plugins. I keep it on a flash drive so that I can plug it in at > home or work. I'm doing this instead of using a regular paper journal > because I keep thinking that there must be a technical advantage, just > as a word processing program has an advantage over a typewriter. > > The TiddlyWiki has a lot of things going for it from a technical point > of view. It is easy to update, read, search, reorganize, be made > available on the Internet, and operates locally with no server. It's > small, currently only a couple hundred kilobytes including all the > JavaScript code that makes it work. Of course it leverages all the > code in the web browser (not included) to make this happen. > > A glaring thing that is missing from TiddlyWiki as compared to a paper > notebook is that there is not an easy, direct way to create and view > sketches or pictures. There is one variation of TiddlyWiki that > includes SVG support, but it is set up to display charts and plots. > There is no interactive drawing capability. Right now, I'm using an > external paint program for this (leverage that external code again!), > which works okay but adds more files to track and somewhat attenuates > the creative flow of thought. > > I know that there have been a few attempts to do local personal > journals in Squeak. What would be the best current Squeak example of > a high function, technology-leveraged journal/notebook that is > portable and easily and optionally Internet web-accessible? What > might be a good approach to building the ultimate electronic notebook? > I'm not talking about a finished published work here, but rather an > interactive working partner. > > So what do you think? > have. It would be great to have because I move from OS to OS daily. But, I can't help you because I haven't found one. Please let us know if you do! brad |
Re: [OT somewhat] personal notebook
|
|
In reply to this post by David Faught
Hi David,
I know that you're aware of my Sketchbook prototype... unfortunately there are unfinished prerequisites before I can port it properly into Croquet. Sophie might also be useful for this sort of thing; I can't say for sure since I haven't used it. I also used Squeak's out-of-the-box authoring capabilities + Connectors for a few years, but stopped that in favor of working out my ideas in a 9x12 artist's sketchbook. As easy as Squeak's authoring is compared to other systems, I found that there is still enough cognitive overhead to disrupt my creative process. Josh On Apr 12, 2006, at 11:09 AM, David Faught wrote: > I'm doing a personal journal/project notebook now using TiddlyWiki and > a few plugins. I keep it on a flash drive so that I can plug it in at > home or work. I'm doing this instead of using a regular paper journal > because I keep thinking that there must be a technical advantage, just > as a word processing program has an advantage over a typewriter. > > The TiddlyWiki has a lot of things going for it from a technical point > of view. It is easy to update, read, search, reorganize, be made > available on the Internet, and operates locally with no server. It's > small, currently only a couple hundred kilobytes including all the > JavaScript code that makes it work. Of course it leverages all the > code in the web browser (not included) to make this happen. > > A glaring thing that is missing from TiddlyWiki as compared to a paper > notebook is that there is not an easy, direct way to create and view > sketches or pictures. There is one variation of TiddlyWiki that > includes SVG support, but it is set up to display charts and plots. > There is no interactive drawing capability. Right now, I'm using an > external paint program for this (leverage that external code again!), > which works okay but adds more files to track and somewhat attenuates > the creative flow of thought. > > I know that there have been a few attempts to do local personal > journals in Squeak. What would be the best current Squeak example of > a high function, technology-leveraged journal/notebook that is > portable and easily and optionally Internet web-accessible? What > might be a good approach to building the ultimate electronic notebook? > I'm not talking about a finished published work here, but rather an > interactive working partner. > > So what do you think? > |
Re: [OT somewhat] personal notebook
|
|
In reply to this post by David Faught
David Faught puso en su mail :
> I know that there have been a few attempts to do local personal > journals in Squeak. What would be the best current Squeak example of > a high function, technology-leveraged journal/notebook that is > portable and easily and optionally Internet web-accessible? What > might be a good approach to building the ultimate electronic notebook? > I'm not talking about a finished published work here, but rather an > interactive working partner. > > So what do you think? I not very sure what you need / wish but... I have a shrinked Squeak based image for run ComSwiki (the Ani Ani Web is coool), Sblog, HttpView and a couple of my things in a USB card what travels from my Mac to PC clones. . See in action on my Mac (in Spanish, but you could hacve the idea) on http://201-212-99-13.cab.prima.net.ar:9000/seaside/blog/SqueakLightChronicle s/ (Exist newer version of Sblog) http://201-212-99-13.cab.prima.net.ar:8888/ani Edgar __________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! ¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
I had some spare time to kill on a train last week so I can give some
numbers for another platform and language: ==================================================================== Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.10GHz -------------------------------------------------------------------- VM: Squeak 3.7.1 (release) from Sep 23 2004; Compiler: gcc 2.95.2 19991024 (release) Image: Squeak 3.9alpha latest update: #6704 79,158,936 bytecodes/sec 2,192,619 sends/sec --------------------------------------------------------------------- java version "1.4.2_11" Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_11-b06) Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.2_11-b06, mixed mode) 897,458,369 bytecodes/sec 20,999,087 sends/sec ===================================================================== Mobile Phone Model: Nokia 6230i Type: RM-72 --------------------------------------------------------------------- java version ? 32,193,158 bytecodes/sec 566,002 sends/sec ===================================================================== Regards, Alex Dan Ingalls schrieb: > I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy this > little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... > > http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/JavaScriptBenchmark.html > > Have fun > - Dan > |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
Am 12.04.2006 um 21:59 schrieb Dan Ingalls: > I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy > this little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... > > http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/JavaScriptBenchmark.html Fun indeed. Anyone else noticed the abysmal send performance in Apple's Safari? n1 = 4; time = 646 milliseconds; 3095975 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 3443 milliseconds; 21791 sends/sec. Firefox is 20x faster: n1 = 8; time = 566 milliseconds; 7067138 operations/sec. n2 = 27; time = 743 milliseconds; 427740 sends/sec. - Bert - |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
Bert Freudenberg puso en su mail :
> Fun indeed. Anyone else noticed the abysmal send performance in > Apple's Safari? > > n1 = 4; time = 646 milliseconds; 3095975 operations/sec. > n2 = 24; time = 3443 milliseconds; 21791 sends/sec. > > Firefox is 20x faster: > > n1 = 8; time = 566 milliseconds; 7067138 operations/sec. > n2 = 27; time = 743 milliseconds; 427740 sends/sec. > > - Bert - I have IE, Firefox, iCab and Safari on my Mac. The four do different oddities and Firefox is what performs better with Squeak web things like HttpView2 and ComSwiki. The fact is what we are doing a very single web game and now only are using Firefox. The answer to why Safari don not performs well is because Apple now like sells music and iPods and instead using X360 micro they are in the way to become one clone more. Edgar __________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! ¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg-3
Il giorno gio, 13/04/2006 alle 11.22 +0200, Bert Freudenberg ha scritto:
> Am 12.04.2006 um 21:59 schrieb Dan Ingalls: > > > I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy > > this little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... > > > > http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/JavaScriptBenchmark.html > > Fun indeed. Anyone else noticed the abysmal send performance in > Apple's Safari? > > n1 = 4; time = 646 milliseconds; 3095975 operations/sec. > n2 = 24; time = 3443 milliseconds; 21791 sends/sec. > > Firefox is 20x faster: > > n1 = 8; time = 566 milliseconds; 7067138 operations/sec. > n2 = 27; time = 743 milliseconds; 427740 sends/sec. > Firefox uses Spidermonkey, which is the original implementation of JavaScript (from Netscape 2.0) and is a bytecode interpreter. Safari's JavascriptCore is based on KDE's KJS, which works on ASTs. Giovanni |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
Dan Ingalls wrote:
> I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy this > little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... I find it interesting that Squeak-on-Java runs faster than Javascript-in-Firefox for me, by these tinyBenchmarks. (Sends are faster by ~40%; bytecodes are slightly slower.) Tony |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg-3
But apparently the DOM in Safari is much faster than FireFox's (since the
Logo we just did in JavaScript runs a little faster in Safari). Cheers, Alan At 02:22 AM 4/13/2006, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >Am 12.04.2006 um 21:59 schrieb Dan Ingalls: > >>I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy >>this little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... >> >> http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/JavaScriptBenchmark.html > >Fun indeed. Anyone else noticed the abysmal send performance in >Apple's Safari? > > n1 = 4; time = 646 milliseconds; 3095975 operations/sec. > n2 = 24; time = 3443 milliseconds; 21791 sends/sec. > >Firefox is 20x faster: > > n1 = 8; time = 566 milliseconds; 7067138 operations/sec. > n2 = 27; time = 743 milliseconds; 427740 sends/sec. > >- Bert - > |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
I wrote earlier...
> http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/JavaScriptBenchmark.html > >Have fun I just got a strange anonymous message about Java (Moi? ;-) and thought I ought to explain. I just sent this out because a) It's interesting how much faster Squeak is, and b) It is great to have *any* active medium. The cool thing about this link is that the web page *is* the benchmark. If we want to get out of the dark ages, we must figure how to make this kind of active material (dynamic media) ubiquitous, not extraordinary. - Dan |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
In reply to this post by Tony Garnock-Jones-2
Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> Dan Ingalls wrote: > > I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy this > > little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... > > I find it interesting that Squeak-on-Java runs faster than > Javascript-in-Firefox for me, by these tinyBenchmarks. (Sends are faster > by ~40%; bytecodes are slightly slower.) > Actually, it is unfair to compare JavaScript to Squeak. To set the playing field level, one should compare JavsScript to SqueakScript, instead ;-) Cheers, SmallSqueak. P.S: BTW, does anyone know what happened to SmallScript? |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
> to
> get > out of the dark ages, we must figure how to make this kind of > active material (dynamic media) ubiquitous, not extraordinary. > > - Dan As an optimist, I hope extraordinary would lead to ubiquity. Maybe Croquet will be compelling enough to follow this course. Unfortunately, most of what's ubiquitous now did not.. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
Hi Bert, What kind of Mac were you running on? I get these results: iBook G4 1.2 GHz, OS X 10.4.6, Safari 2.0.3 (417.9.2) n1 = 2; time = 259 milliseconds; 3861004 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 532 milliseconds; 3759398 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 731 milliseconds; 102633 sends/sec. iBook G4 1.2 GHz, OS X 10.4.6, Firefox 1.5.0.1 n1 = 2; time = 128 milliseconds; 7812500 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 331 milliseconds; 6042296 operations/sec. n1 = 8; time = 506 milliseconds; 7905138 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 190 milliseconds; 394868 sends/sec. n2 = 25; time = 329 milliseconds; 368976 sends/sec. n2 = 26; time = 508 milliseconds; 386650 sends/sec. So,I'd say Firefox is about 2x faster for operations and 4x for sends, but not 20x. And just for fun: Dell PWS370 P4 3.0 GHz, Win XP Sp2, IE 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 n1 = 2; time = 62 milliseconds; 16129032 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 110 milliseconds; 18181818 operations/sec. n1 = 8; time = 219 milliseconds; 18264840 operations/sec. n1 = 16; time = 453 milliseconds; 17660044 operations/sec. n1 = 32; time = 906 milliseconds; 17660044 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 437 milliseconds; 171682 sends/sec. n2 = 25; time = 719 milliseconds; 168836 sends/sec. Dell PWS370 P4 3.0 GHz, Win XP Sp2, IE 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 n1 = 2; time = 47 milliseconds; 21276596 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 109 milliseconds; 18348624 operations/sec. n1 = 8; time = 203 milliseconds; 19704433 operations/sec. n1 = 16; time = 422 milliseconds; 18957346 operations/sec. n1 = 32; time = 860 milliseconds; 18604651 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 93 milliseconds; 806720 sends/sec. n2 = 25; time = 157 milliseconds; 773204 sends/sec. n2 = 26; time = 250 milliseconds; 785672 sends/sec. n2 = 27; time = 390 milliseconds; 814900 sends/sec. n2 = 28; time = 656 milliseconds; 783886 sends/sec. Here, Firefox is about the same for operations and 4x to 5x for sends. -Dean
Am 12.04.2006 um 21:59 schrieb Dan Ingalls: > I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy > this little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... > > http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/JavaScriptBenchmark.html Fun indeed. Anyone else noticed the abysmal send performance in Apple's Safari? n1 = 4; time = 646 milliseconds; 3095975 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 3443 milliseconds; 21791 sends/sec. Firefox is 20x faster: n1 = 8; time = 566 milliseconds; 7067138 operations/sec. n2 = 27; time = 743 milliseconds; 427740 sends/sec. - Bert - |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
iMac G5, 1.6 GHz, software as yours. I re-ran it today, looks a bit
better: Safari: n1 = 2; time = 418 milliseconds; 2392344 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 558 milliseconds; 3584229 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 1362 milliseconds; 55084 sends/sec. Firefox: n1 = 2; time = 102 milliseconds; 9803922 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 207 milliseconds; 9661836 operations/sec. n1 = 8; time = 413 milliseconds; 9685230 operations/sec. n1 = 16; time = 892 milliseconds; 8968610 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 137 milliseconds; 547628 sends/sec. n2 = 25; time = 221 milliseconds; 549290 sends/sec. n2 = 26; time = 358 milliseconds; 548654 sends/sec. n2 = 27; time = 600 milliseconds; 529685 sends/sec. ... which is still 10x more sends. - Bert - Am 13.04.2006 um 23:04 schrieb [hidden email]: > > Hi Bert, > > What kind of Mac were you running on? I get these results: > > iBook G4 1.2 GHz, OS X 10.4.6, Safari 2.0.3 (417.9.2) > n1 = 2; time = 259 milliseconds; 3861004 operations/sec. > n1 = 4; time = 532 milliseconds; 3759398 operations/sec. > > n2 = 24; time = 731 milliseconds; 102633 sends/sec. > > > iBook G4 1.2 GHz, OS X 10.4.6, Firefox 1.5.0.1 > n1 = 2; time = 128 milliseconds; 7812500 operations/sec. > n1 = 4; time = 331 milliseconds; 6042296 operations/sec. > n1 = 8; time = 506 milliseconds; 7905138 operations/sec. > > n2 = 24; time = 190 milliseconds; 394868 sends/sec. > n2 = 25; time = 329 milliseconds; 368976 sends/sec. > n2 = 26; time = 508 milliseconds; 386650 sends/sec. > > So,I'd say Firefox is about 2x faster for operations and 4x for > sends, but not 20x. > > > And just for fun: > > Dell PWS370 P4 3.0 GHz, Win XP Sp2, IE > 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 > n1 = 2; time = 62 milliseconds; 16129032 operations/sec. > n1 = 4; time = 110 milliseconds; 18181818 operations/sec. > n1 = 8; time = 219 milliseconds; 18264840 operations/sec. > n1 = 16; time = 453 milliseconds; 17660044 operations/sec. > n1 = 32; time = 906 milliseconds; 17660044 operations/sec. > > n2 = 24; time = 437 milliseconds; 171682 sends/sec. > n2 = 25; time = 719 milliseconds; 168836 sends/sec. > > Dell PWS370 P4 3.0 GHz, Win XP Sp2, IE > 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 > n1 = 2; time = 47 milliseconds; 21276596 operations/sec. > n1 = 4; time = 109 milliseconds; 18348624 operations/sec. > n1 = 8; time = 203 milliseconds; 19704433 operations/sec. > n1 = 16; time = 422 milliseconds; 18957346 operations/sec. > n1 = 32; time = 860 milliseconds; 18604651 operations/sec. > > n2 = 24; time = 93 milliseconds; 806720 sends/sec. > n2 = 25; time = 157 milliseconds; 773204 sends/sec. > n2 = 26; time = 250 milliseconds; 785672 sends/sec. > n2 = 27; time = 390 milliseconds; 814900 sends/sec. > n2 = 28; time = 656 milliseconds; 783886 sends/sec. > > Here, Firefox is about the same for operations and 4x to 5x for sends. > > -Dean > > > > > Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> > Sent by: [hidden email] > 04/13/2006 05:22 AM > Please respond to The general-purpose Squeak developers list > > > To: Dan Ingalls <[hidden email]> > cc: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark > > > > > Am 12.04.2006 um 21:59 schrieb Dan Ingalls: > > > I've been having fun with JavaScript, and thought folks would enjoy > > this little tribute to tinyBenchmarks... > > > > http://www.weather-dimensions.com/Dan/ > JavaScriptBenchmark.html > > Fun indeed. Anyone else noticed the abysmal send performance in > Apple's Safari? > > n1 = 4; time = 646 milliseconds; 3095975 operations/ > sec. > n2 = 24; time = 3443 milliseconds; 21791 sends/sec. > > Firefox is 20x faster: > > n1 = 8; time = 566 milliseconds; 7067138 operations/ > sec. > n2 = 27; time = 743 milliseconds; 427740 sends/sec. > > - Bert - > > > > > |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
Here at work, we built (mostly David Pennell) a JavaScript system called Smee (an old version of it is available in the Cincom public repository). It is a faithful implementation of the ECMAscript standard in VisualWorks. It is compiled to VW bytecode, but message sends don't (yet) leverage VM message lookup. Looks like it's quite a bit faster in ops/sec than both Firefox and IE (this was running on a Pentium M laptop under WinXP). Amazingly, even without help from the VM for message lookup, it's still faster in that category than IE (but lags behind Firefox).
- Stephen Firefox: n1 = 2; time = 60 milliseconds; 16666667 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 130 milliseconds; 15384615 operations/sec. n1 = 8; time = 261 milliseconds; 15325670 operations/sec. n1 = 16; time = 600 milliseconds; 13333333 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 151 milliseconds; 496854 sends/sec. n2 = 25; time = 200 milliseconds; 606965 sends/sec. n2 = 26; time = 300 milliseconds; 654727 sends/sec. n2 = 27; time = 481 milliseconds; 660730 sends/sec. n2 = 28; time = 791 milliseconds; 650100 sends/sec. IE: n1 = 2; time = 230 milliseconds; 4347826 operations/sec. n1 = 4; time = 161 milliseconds; 12422360 operations/sec. n1 = 8; time = 230 milliseconds; 17391304 operations/sec. n1 = 16; time = 471 milliseconds; 16985138 operations/sec. n2 = 24; time = 481 milliseconds; 155977 sends/sec. n2 = 25; time = 570 milliseconds; 212970 sends/sec. Smee: 0: 'n1 = 2; time = 40 milliseconds; 25000000 operations/sec.' 1: 'n1 = 4; time = 88 milliseconds; 22727273 operations/sec.' 2: 'n1 = 8; time = 176 milliseconds; 22727273 operations/sec.' 3: 'n1 = 16; time = 333 milliseconds; 24024024 operations/sec.' 4: 'n1 = 32; time = 694 milliseconds; 23054755 operations/sec.' 5: 'n2 = 24; time = 194 milliseconds; 386727 sends/sec.' 6: 'n2 = 25; time = 319 milliseconds; 380542 sends/sec.' 7: 'n2 = 26; time = 506 milliseconds; 388178 sends/sec.'
On 4/18/06, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: iMac G5, 1.6 GHz, software as yours. I re-ran it today, looks a bit |
Re: JavaScript Performance Benchmark
|
|
Any chance this will see a squeak port?
On Apr 18, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Stephen Pair wrote: Here at work, we built (mostly David Pennell) a JavaScript system called Smee (an old version of it is available in the Cincom public repository). It is a faithful implementation of the ECMAscript standard in VisualWorks. It is compiled to VW bytecode, but message sends don't (yet) leverage VM message lookup. Looks like it's quite a bit faster in ops/sec than both Firefox and IE (this was running on a Pentium M laptop under WinXP). Amazingly, even without help from the VM for message lookup, it's still faster in that category than IE (but lags behind Firefox). |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |