I am surely wont complain if you made code that I need to be faster, faster.
Afterall languages like C/C++ are not popular by accident. Nor is accidental that many of python libraries are made in those two language that people love to hate. I am definitely not claiming that performance is not important. But slow speed definetly did not kill Python, it wont kill Pharo either. On the other hand recently I was distracted by the fact that people still code on old computers like Amstrads and Amigas and have beendoing some amazing stuff like GUIs OS with video playback , internet browsing, Business applications etc which is kinda insane if you take into account that these are machines that thousands times slow with cpu that barely reach 6-12mhz. So I think we need to be realistic about Pharo and let things evolve and people contribute the way they want and can. Both performace and efficiency are very important. But yes I am more orientated towards well designed workflow. Maybe this is why I still I love Amiga 500 :D On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-02-05 11:14 GMT+01:00 kilon alios <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: > >> And there is also the matter of hardware evolution. >> >> When I was running Pharo on my 2007 imac 20'' with dual core 2.GHZ , >> Morphic was slow. And by slow I mean that I could see it was struggling to >> move windows around. I could see windows flickering trying to render >> themselves moving around. >> >> But now with my 2014 imac even though the screen is double the size and >> the resolution much bigger (27'' retina) , Morphic is now quite fast. The >> reason is of course the fact that the CPU is a quad core at 3 Ghz thats >> almost a 3x times increase in speed and it really shows. >> >> Even when Pharo take full the huge area of 27'' Morphic is responsive and >> quite fast. >> > > Which means if I see you complaining of speed issues, then it must be > really bad :) > > Thierry >
