6 ms·

Your minimalist core feature and flexible extension strategy sounds very appealing. I can identify having this impulse after doing things with Rust but fantasi

Your minimalist core feature and flexible extension strategy sounds very appealing. I can identify having this impulse after doing things with Rust but fantasizing about a LISP cousin: Smalltalk. Now that you mentioned Go it is a more natural thing to try due to its garbage collection already done there. Thanks por pointing that out. What restrains me a bit of starting any effort in this direction is Pharo's current performance: Time microsecondsToRun: [ 100 factorial ]. "86"

igouy 4y ago
Please spell-out whether you are restrained by how-good or how-bad you consider current performance to be.
- sebastianconcpt 4y ago
  86 microseconds is an order of magnitude better than what was benchmaked here but maybe other bechmarks aren't as good. Said that, I do not want to sunk time into trying to improve something, only to find out tha it will perform worst. Maybe the compromise is to try to do a minimal proof of concept only manually transpilig a couple of objects from Smaltalk to Go and measure that?
  - igouy 4y ago
    Well, we don't seem to have any information about the hardware used, so it's going to be a sketchy comparison. In any case, shouldn't your measurement be made the same way John Jacobsen seems to have made measurements — $ time ./bin/visual ./image/visualnc64.im -nogui -doit "Stdout nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; cr. ObjectMemory quit" 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 real 0m0.616s user 0m0.452s sys 0m0.161s
    - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
      I've ran that on 64bits Pharo 7 in a mid 2015 mac book pro and it measures only the time taken for the factorial (excluding system startup/shutdown). By the way, I'm not recognizing that command, I'm curious, what smalltalk is that you're using there?
      - igouy 4y ago
        $ cat fact.st Stdio stdout nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; nextPut: Character lf.! SmalltalkImage current snapshot: false andQuit: true! $ time bin/pharo --headless Pharo10-SNAPSHOT-64bit-502addc.image fact.st 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 real 0m0.350s user 0m0.303s sys 0m0.049s
      - igouy 4y ago
        > I've ran that on… I don't think we know about the hardware used for the other measurements — so sketchy comparison. > … excluding system startup/shutdown… Why would you do that when the other measurements included startup/shutdown? https://github.com/eigenhombre/l1/ https://github.com/eigenhombre/l1/ > … not recognizing that command… Cincom Smalltalk, VisualWorks® 8.3 run with `time` from a terminal window command line, like the other measurements.

igouy 4y ago

Please spell-out whether you are restrained by how-good or how-bad you consider current performance to be.

sebastianconcpt 4y ago
86 microseconds is an order of magnitude better than what was benchmaked here but maybe other bechmarks aren't as good. Said that, I do not want to sunk time into trying to improve something, only to find out tha it will perform worst. Maybe the compromise is to try to do a minimal proof of concept only manually transpilig a couple of objects from Smaltalk to Go and measure that?
- igouy 4y ago
  Well, we don't seem to have any information about the hardware used, so it's going to be a sketchy comparison. In any case, shouldn't your measurement be made the same way John Jacobsen seems to have made measurements — $ time ./bin/visual ./image/visualnc64.im -nogui -doit "Stdout nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; cr. ObjectMemory quit" 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 real 0m0.616s user 0m0.452s sys 0m0.161s
  - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
    I've ran that on 64bits Pharo 7 in a mid 2015 mac book pro and it measures only the time taken for the factorial (excluding system startup/shutdown). By the way, I'm not recognizing that command, I'm curious, what smalltalk is that you're using there?
    - igouy 4y ago
      $ cat fact.st Stdio stdout nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; nextPut: Character lf.! SmalltalkImage current snapshot: false andQuit: true! $ time bin/pharo --headless Pharo10-SNAPSHOT-64bit-502addc.image fact.st 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 real 0m0.350s user 0m0.303s sys 0m0.049s
    - igouy 4y ago
      > I've ran that on… I don't think we know about the hardware used for the other measurements — so sketchy comparison. > … excluding system startup/shutdown… Why would you do that when the other measurements included startup/shutdown? https://github.com/eigenhombre/l1/ https://github.com/eigenhombre/l1/ > … not recognizing that command… Cincom Smalltalk, VisualWorks® 8.3 run with `time` from a terminal window command line, like the other measurements.