Stef, One of my greatest concerns about/for the Squeak community is an overall tone of "*YOU* can't do that because *I* think its's ugly" - or in this case, too slow. So, far be it from me to tell you that you cannot have even a super slow browser that does something you need. That's all the more true when you are doing such great things for Smalltalk and Pharo in particular. I am certainly not suggesting that we remove the browser that helps you make things better.
However, I suggest that we consider carefully what we choose as the default tools, or at least give options to those who are finding the current defaults to be slow. Even if we continue with the OB as the default, we could at least have a script somewhere with a comment along the lines of "for a faster (at the expense of features) IDE, evaluate the following:". It appears that we indeed have the alternate tools lurking in the image, so a little advertising might go a long way until we can fix the bottlenecks or Elliot makes a VM that overpowers them. I *think* I am asking only that we advertise the options and perhaps delay cleaning certain parts of the system until the high end tools get a speed boost. Alternately, we could take up a recent suggestion to temporarily disable specific features that are hobbling performance - either way that preserves what you need is fine by me. Is that reasonable? Bill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean)) yes probably but I really needed that when curving out etoy On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Michael Rueger wrote: > Lukas Renggli wrote: >>> OUCH!!!! That's quite an example; just for giggles, I started up a >>> 3.9 polymorph image and retraced my steps (via message names, same >>> as in Pharo) and had a prompt reply. After doing that, I found >>> that Pharo (win32) had indeed completed the task. >> >> Again, this has nothing to do with Pharo, OmniBrowser or Polymorph. >> >> This is PackageInfo that is so slow when trying to find out the >> owning package of each of the 6334 methods. If the display of the >> package for every method is removed the sender browser opens almost >> instantly. > > Then we should remove or at least temporarily disable it. The user > doesn't care why something is slow. > > michael > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
