On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Hernán Morales Durand
> Hi Serge,
> I didn't knew that paper. You are right, in the community analysis they seem
> to compare Bio* projects against Pharo and not BioSmalltalk. That's weird
> because the paper is very clear about BioSmalltalk is the name of the
> library and Pharo is the supporting platform. I will contact the authors
> because the BioSmalltalk community is very small and I expected that when
> developing the library. On the other side they use 99% Pharo code... I
> remember someone asking me about how to do in BioSmalltalk the task proposed
> in the paper. I answered the analysis is strange, because the flat-file they
> are parsing (intended for human reading) can be downloaded in XML and parsed
> easily with a XML pull parser. Or even ASN.1.
For me this paper is crappy and this kind of journal not really good.
So I'm not surprised,
> BioSmalltalk is faster for some tasks, for example reading/filtering BLAST
> alignments. I have put special emphasis on that. Maybe I should prepare a
> post comparing speeds for additional tasks. Thank you for the link.
It would be nice to do as real benchmark between the different
platforms on real examples.
A paper for IWST 2017 ? ;-)
UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC)
Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk