> Are we sure that Git is really the best way to go? Yes, it’s everywhere, but > its representation in Iceberg seems awkward or incomplete. I’ve been able to > crash several Pharo VMs with routine repo operations. This is why I backed > away recently from Pharo--that and the mush (see below).
I haven't seen is the instability of the VM you mention, it has worked pretty well for my average use, although the UX is not straightforward. > The other thing that keeps me planted firmly in VW is the sheer speed of it. I don't know if there are recent benchmarks, but I've felt Pharo to be really fast compared to VW when it comes to computing. > Pharo looks generally much better, but it’s mushy, and that’s a problem. VW > is not. Working regularly with VW or VAST when I go back to Pharo the "mushiness" is significantly noticeable, but if you open a Pharo 3 image (or even Pharo 4) you'll feel it really "snappy", but of course you'll lose all the improvements since then; and that's the current tradeoff. I never understood the reason for the incremental slowdown, it is even present in "modern" tools such as GTToolkit. > Gestural dynamics are very quick, well under 100 ms latency, often less than > 20 ms. > I’m seeing 100, 150, and 200 ms regularly in Pharo. It’s too mushy, and that > slows the mind. > Any developer understands this, whether he talks about it or not. This is true, below 20ms is ideal, and top-notch CLI terminals are benchmarking this as a selling point (using stuff like https://github.com/pavelfatin/typometer), Sublime, TextEdit, Notepad++ measure sub 10ms latency. > So I’m wondering when the Pharo GUI will snap as well as VW. Maybe with native widgets there will be a significant speedup, although I don't know whether the lag comes from rendering time or from something else. But VW event model is not better than Pharo's, so it might be something else. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo
