how the bug report is bad ? No the workarounds were not helpful because I was already aware of them :)
I appreciate people trying to help as always but yes it was upsetting to me , to be told that my bug report is bad, that loading 60 tiny images in 1 second is acceptable for a GUI and that opening 60 files is also near the limitation of my hardware. Because I find every one of them , very far from the truth and not very helpful. But I may have overacted also in my part so I apologize. All is good life goes on :) On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-01-16 15:40 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: > >> disk, 1TB. why it matters ? from my profile its clear that its not the >> primitive that is the problem but how Pharo processes pngs. >> >> I happen to work with a lot of big data both in 3d graphics, a blender >> file can easily reach 250 mb and it opens under a second and audio files , >> plus instrument that uses alot of audio files as samples of several gbs >> giving again instanenous loading. I am not talking here 60 files, I am >> talking thousands of files. >> >> I report a sever limitation and I have been told >> >> a) I have not done enough to isolate the problem when I post clear >> profiling reports and the code that is responsible for it >> > > The bug report was indeed bad. > > >> b) why I make a fuss about it since there are work arounds >> > > I did not see the "why make a fuss about". And the work arounds are > actually helpful, no? > > >> c) that its a hardware limitation when the hardware is able to perform >> light years ahead of what pharo is currently doing >> >> Sorry but this kind of attitude is really bad, when someone reports a bug >> I find it a lot better to tell him that you don't care or not reply at all >> and ignore him than just find excuses for the bug or limitation. >> > > You reported a problem with morphics image loading and some people > immediately step in to help you analyse your code. More pepole helped by > giving some tipps and possible workaounds. > What is wrong with this. I don't see a bad attitude. > > >> >> I see it every single time I complain about a problem there is a few >> people who are logical about this like Ben , Esteban etc and then some >> other that in complete denial zone and easily offended by the truth. >> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:07 PM Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl> >> wrote: >> >>> On 16-01-16 14:48, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: >>> > sorry but thats plain horrible performance wise and those images are >>> > needed as soon as the gui is opened. So there can be no lazy loading >>> for >>> > them. The total size for all the 60 images is 530kbs . What would >>> happen >>> > if I did some serious animations of 10s of mbs , I will have to go to >>> > buy a coffee to get my GUI opened :D >>> >>> Is that on a disk or an SSD? You won't be able to get much more than 60 >>> files opened/s on a disk. >>> >>> Stephan >>> >>> >>> >>>
