2014-12-05 10:55 GMT+01:00 Guillermo Polito <[email protected]>:
> I will summon Martin and Mariano here :). > > Introducing fuel in the loading infrastructure had so far AFAIK two > different experimental setups: > - tanker: a package completely written in fuel > Oh, I missed that one, yes. I remember the name. > - mixing tanker/fuel with monticello. > > Sort of what I'm thinking about. > However, the results were not so promising I remember. Apparently when > loading a package, most of the time is spent not in the > deserialization/recompilation but in the update of the system (system > dictionary, categories, rpackages, update the corresponding subclass > relationships). > > Just try the following: load a monticello package with (a) no Nautilus > opened, and with (a) 10 Nautilus opened. > I profiled AltBrowser for that use case... It's a bit more vulnerable to that than Nautilus because you may see more of the structure at a given time than Nautilus (such as having a single browser watching the methods of two classes). Still, once a bit optimised, MC loading time dominates. But I haven't looked too closely on exactly what; I was focused on getting the browser bit as small as possible. If anybody has things about the various costs, I'd be interested. Thierry
