|
Re: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?: msg#00148lang.smalltalk.squeak.beginners
Milan Zimmermann wrote: > On 2006 September 21 15:07, David Shaffer wrote: > >> There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image. >> > > >> Milan Zimmermann wrote: >> > <<snip>> > >> I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with >> MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :):) ) >> Gasp, sorry, didn't see that. I've loaded it now. Here are the benchmark results: [ 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ] ] timeToRun. 15000 At this point the UI is so slow that moving a window or morph results in a noticable lag (nearly a second between releasing the mouse button after a drag until the object that was dragged is drawn in its new location). > > You would have to install the above package from Squeakmap to run the > "graphics test" I mentioned, but please note it's alpha, so install to a 3.9 > image without important stuff. > > I am not sure this is a good "graphical test", it does create graphs, so it > should have some value, it is non-interactive graphics though. Apart from > that, 3.9 feels as good as 3.7 here, but as you said .. it's my feelin' only > Agreed...it is subjective. David
|
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Newbies] Why Squeak is so sloooow?, Brad Fuller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?, Ramon Leon |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?, Milan Zimmermann |
| Next by Thread: | RE: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?, Ramon Leon |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |