> On 07 Jul 2015, at 17:37, itli...@schrievkrom.de wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks for all these explanations. I tested the versions you mentioned > below with both Pharo and Squeak. > > Squeak-GUI (4.6) seems still to be three times faster than Pharo's GUI > (5.0) - but actually it's at least a Pharo version which has an > acceptable speed.
Yes, this is a lot like that. Hard to actually compare because they diverged a lot (we adopted Polymorph, etc.) that made our UI slower. In regular machines, this is not a problem but they are some scenarios where it shows it weakness. We are working on enhance the performance of our tools. If you are trying a “latest-spur” image (and I suppose you do, because others do not work ;) ), you can try: Nautilus useExperimentalFastTable: true. is still WIP, but I would like to have some feedback :) Esteban > > Marten > > Am 05.07.2015 um 21:24 schrieb Attila Magyar: >> Hi Marten, >> >> Currently I'm using this this vm from here >> >> http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/VM.r3395/cogspurlinuxhtARM-15.26.3395.tgz >> >> with the latest Pharo 5 spur image from here >> >> http://files.pharo.org/image/50/latest-spur32.zip >> >> As far as I know, spur is a new memory manager but I'm not familiar with the >> details. >> >> There is also a stack vm that works with ordinary images, but it lacks JIT >> compilation therefore a lot slower than cog. >> >> Attila >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Situation-Raspberry-PI-and-Pharo-Squeak-tp4835873p4835876.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > -- > Marten Feldtmann >
