Good point on both remarks. Obviously if the image size can be shrank down it is an advantage and most likely will boost performance as well making pharo experience snappier. That was my experience using Cuis ( ) . About the benchmarks maybe use a common pharo command as a reference point (like Transcipt >> open) and then do the benchmark relative to that so the benchmark does not rely on absolute values that may differ from machine to machine.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:28 PM Peter Uhnák <> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <> wrote:
Frankly I dont mind big images or big data , neither I share the obsession to shrink things down to few mbs in a time that we are talking in TBs .

I usually do it because time to save an image increases with image size (so instead of ~instant for 60MB it takes couple seconds for 600 MB)... since I have HDD.

I was wondering whether it would worth the effort beyond the unit tests that check for behaviour of the code to have also benchmark tests that will have to pass specific standards so that specific method must perform under a strict timetable specific tasks, this way CI may alert not only unit tests that fail but also benchmarks that fail , automagically.

We already sort of have that:
TestAsserter>>should: aBlock notTakeMoreThanMilliseconds: anInteger

Although I see a problem that each machine will have a different performance. So it would need to establish a baseline and then base the execution time on that. (e.g. execution shouldn't take more than 300% of a baseline).

Moose-dev mailing list