Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean))

> Regards, Gary
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:40 PM
> Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The
> future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT
> licenseclean))
>
>
>> David Corking wrote:
>>> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
>>> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
>>> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
>>> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
>>> perform better.)
>>>
>>> To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any
>>> code profiling done on this issue?
>>
>> I haven't done any real profiling. But here is a starting point:
>>
>> [ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
>>
>> On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at
>> 5020 msecs. That's 10x slower.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
>
>
>

> Gary Chambers wrote:
>> That'd be OB then.
>> With the StandardToolSet, Pharo0.1Core-10371, on a 2.8 Quad I get 303
>> ms...
>
> That sounds about right. And yes, it's obviously an OB issue - this whole
> discussion started out by Igor wondering why people don't like using OB. I
> think a major part of the answer is just that.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>> Regards, Gary
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]>
>> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
>> <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:40 PM
>> Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future
>> ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean))
>>
>>
>>> David Corking wrote:
>>>> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
>>>> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
>>>> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
>>>> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
>>>> perform better.)
>>>>
>>>> To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any
>>>> code profiling done on this issue?
>>>
>>> I haven't done any real profiling. But here is a starting point:
>>>
>>> [ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
>>>
>>> On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020
>>> msecs. That's 10x slower.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>   - Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>> That sounds about right. And yes, it's obviously an OB issue - this whole
>> discussion started out by Igor wondering why people don't like using OB.
>> I
>> think a major part of the answer is just that.
>
> It is definitely not an issue of OB, but an issue of the extensions
> that people load with OB.
>
> If you try the Seaside One Click image you will notice that OB is only
> marginally slower than the old browser.
>
> Lukas
>
> --
> Lukas Renggli
> http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
>

> Gary Chambers wrote:
>>
>> That'd be OB then.
>> With the StandardToolSet, Pharo0.1Core-10371, on a 2.8 Quad I get 303
>> ms...
>
> That sounds about right. And yes, it's obviously an OB issue - this whole
> discussion started out by Igor wondering why people don't like using OB. I
> think a major part of the answer is just that.
>

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>> Regards, Gary
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]>
>> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
>> <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:40 PM
>> Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future
>> ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean))
>>
>>
>>> David Corking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
>>>> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
>>>> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
>>>> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
>>>> perform better.)
>>>>
>>>> To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any
>>>> code profiling done on this issue?
>>>
>>> I haven't done any real profiling. But here is a starting point:
>>>
>>> [ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
>>>
>>> On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020
>>> msecs. That's 10x slower.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>  - Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>