Hi All, i am pretty new around here. Glad to see Squeak is so active still.
I have been looking at new Squeak apps like Sophie and Scratch. pretty cool! makes me want to learn Smalltalk. Out of curiosity I have read some of the FAQs about how to deploy a Squeak application. i understand about image files, the VM, and the basics.
I was wondering about Scratch in particular. It seems really nicely done. i am impressed because it's so nice looking and it launches really fast too.
1) How do they get it to launch so fast? It launches in <1 second on my system. In comparison, Squeak 3.9 takes like 15 seconds to launch. Sophie takes about 6 seconds. Why the disparity between these 3 examples?
2) The Scratch user interface is attractive and responsive. Is that Morphic, or MVC or some other UI toolkit?
Thanks,
Alex Rice
Alex Rice wrote:
Hi All, i am pretty new around here. Glad to see Squeak is so active still.
I have been looking at new Squeak apps like Sophie and Scratch. pretty cool! makes me want to learn Smalltalk. Out of curiosity I have read some of the FAQs about how to deploy a Squeak application. i understand about image files, the VM, and the basics.
I was wondering about Scratch in particular. It seems really nicely done. i am impressed because it's so nice looking and it launches really fast too.
- How do they get it to launch so fast? It launches in <1 second on
my system. In comparison, Squeak 3.9 takes like 15 seconds to launch. Sophie takes about 6 seconds. Why the disparity between these 3 examples?
Squeak 3.9 and Sophie uses other font rendering which could slow start up time. Sophie uses Tweak which is another GUI. Scratch is built in Squeak 3.4.
- The Scratch user interface is attractive and responsive. Is that
Morphic, or MVC or some other UI toolkit?
Scratch is morphic.
Thanks,
Alex Rice _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
karl wrote:
Squeak 3.9 and Sophie uses other font rendering which could slow start up time. Sophie uses Tweak which is another GUI. Scratch is built in Squeak 3.4.
Squeak 2.8
Just shows how far Squeak, especially with + Tweak has gone the path to layers upon layers of complexity... In Sophie's case the longest part of the startup though is the scanning of System fonts, we really need some caching mechanism.
Michael
On 8/29/07, Alex Rice alex@mindlube.com wrote:
- How do they get it to launch so fast? It launches in <1 second on
my system. In comparison, Squeak 3.9 takes like 15 seconds to launch. Sophie takes about 6 seconds. Why the disparity between these 3 examples?
I must have a fast computer. I tried a variety of 3.9 images and it took anywhere from 3-5 seconds. 3.10, on the other hand, takes a second. Shrinking the image must make it faster to start it up.
-Ralph
Ralph, how do you shrink an image? I have never done it maybe that's why Squeak is so slow to launch (2 Ghz dual core w/ 2 GB RAM it should launch faster)
I searched the wiki and see methods like majorShrink, condenseChanges, majorShink, etc. This sounds like some dark arts?
Thanks, Alex
On 8/29/07, Ralph Johnson johnson@cs.uiuc.edu wrote:
On 8/29/07, Alex Rice alex@mindlube.com wrote:
- How do they get it to launch so fast? It launches in <1 second on
my system. In comparison, Squeak 3.9 takes like 15 seconds to launch. Sophie takes about 6 seconds. Why the disparity between these 3 examples?
I must have a fast computer. I tried a variety of 3.9 images and it took anywhere from 3-5 seconds. 3.10, on the other hand, takes a second. Shrinking the image must make it faster to start it up.
-Ralph _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Alex Rice wrote:
- How do they get it to launch so fast? It launches in <1 second on
my system. In comparison, Squeak 3.9 takes like 15 seconds to launch. Sophie takes about 6 seconds. Why the disparity between these 3 examples?
Hi Alex,
I think I saw in another thread that you are using Windows. How are you launching Squeak?
My experience on Windows is that if you launch Squeak.exe by double- clicking, it can take a while to bring up the dialog where you can choose an image. However, if you drag an image file onto Squeak.exe, or use a batch file to pass it as a parameter, the image starts up much faster.
I remember somebody explaining why this happened on squeak-dev some time ago, but I'm not sure where.
Hope this helps, Benjamin Schroeder
On Aug 29, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Benjamin Schroeder wrote:
My experience on Windows is that if you launch Squeak.exe by double- clicking, it can take a while to bring up the dialog where you can choose an image. However, if you drag an image file onto Squeak.exe, or use a batch file to pass it as a parameter, the image starts up much faster.
I should add that associating .image files with Squeak.exe, then double-clicking on the image file, probably has the same effect.
Ben
Double clicking in the image file with it associated is the best option IMHO
Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Schroeder benschroeder@acm.org
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:43:08 To:"A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions aboutSqueak." beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Newbies] Scratch questions
On Aug 29, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Benjamin Schroeder wrote:
My experience on Windows is that if you launch Squeak.exe by double- clicking, it can take a while to bring up the dialog where you can choose an image. However, if you drag an image file onto Squeak.exe, or use a batch file to pass it as a parameter, the image starts up much faster.
I should add that associating .image files with Squeak.exe, then double-clicking on the image file, probably has the same effect.
Ben
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:43:08 -0700, Benjamin Schroeder benschroeder@acm.org wrote:
On Aug 29, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Benjamin Schroeder wrote:
My experience on Windows is that if you launch Squeak.exe by double- clicking, it can take a while to bring up the dialog where you can choose an image. However, if you drag an image file onto Squeak.exe, or use a batch file to pass it as a parameter, the image starts up much faster.
I should add that associating .image files with Squeak.exe, then double-clicking on the image file, probably has the same effect.
For what it's worth, on my 2 Ghz Core Duo, Squeak starts almost instantly no matter what. The killer seems to be Squeak not knowing what image file to use. On a 3Ghz machine it takes 15 seconds. (Under Windows. Under Linux, an old 1Ghz machine pops Squeak up in a second or two.)
On 8/29/07, Benjamin Schroeder benschroeder@acm.org wrote:
My experience on Windows is that if you launch Squeak.exe by double- clicking, it can take a while to bring up the dialog where you can choose an image. However, if you drag an image file onto Squeak.exe, or use a batch file to pass it as a parameter, the image starts up much faster.
I believe that if you search for and use the latest windows executable ( 3.9.2 is the version I'm using, although there appear to be 3.10.x versions for windows available as well), then it will start very quickly by just double clicking squeak.exe, and that the reason is very similar to what you have written. It was just fixed in either 3.9.1 or 3.9.2 (after being 'broken' for a very long time).
These are available at: http://www.squeakvm.org/win32/ .
-Chris
beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alex Rice -
Benjamin Schroeder -
Blake -
Chris Cunningham -
glpunzi＠lordzealon.com -
karl -
Michael Rueger -
Ralph Johnson