(I should stop pressing the “send” button before saying everything I has to say)
On 28 Mar 2014, at 02:09, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 27 Mar 2014, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> Umbrella issue: >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13139/Speed-Regressions-in-DateAndTime >>> >>> I rewrote (and simplified) DateAndTime>>#+ #- #= >>> I added caching for #epoch >>> I switched the localTimeZone to an #asFixedTimeZone variant >>> >>> My benchmark now runs 40x FASTER than in Pharo 1.4 >>> >>> All Chronology tests remain green >>> I will upload slices when the funding goal of 1,000,000 USD is reached on >>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003214829/improve-pharo-dateandtime-performance >>> PS: Half of the funds will go to Camillo for making DateAndTime work in UTC >>> internally ;-) >>> >>> PS2: I am not sure I am allowed to fix this so close to release, is it a >>> feature or a bug fix ? ;-) >>> >> >> I would say poor performance is a bug, and if nothing has change in the API, >> then its not a "new feature" >> so this should be integrated. it is not :) Bugs are errors that prevents the system to run. If a system runs, even if slow, then is not an error. An improvement on performance is that: an improvement. Ergo, an enhancement. But ofc, nothing prevent s us to integrate an enhancement to the pharo3 version. Just to the release, but that does not means we are not going to change anything in pharo3 after release. We make releases because we need an order, otherwise we are going to continue incorporate improvements until the infinite, with the result of not a single stable version… yes, the system we are going to release will not be perfect. That’s why we need a pharo4 version (and after that a pharo5, and so on…). If it wouldn’t be needed we would be calling this version “pharo, the ultimate”. and about the change of API: we do not integrate new features not just because the API, is because we cannot be sure about the side effects of a change, even those that can look like a harmless. >> >> Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >>> >>> pharo3 is at the corner to be out. >>> we are not integrating/backporting changes to pharo2 since… well, like 6 >>> months. >>> so no, it will not be there and it will not be integrated. >> >> Can you clarify your position that (hopefully) "will not be integrated" >> refers to just to Pharo 2. > > it does not need to be integrated to pharo3 because is a backport (that > means: is already there) :) but… if there are more improvements (I did not see the slice), nothing prevents us to integrate it. Just right after the release, or if we are sure (for real) that it will not weak the system (something that I find hard to believe in the case of changes to DateAndTime) :) Esteban > >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> >
