Hi Serge, I didn't knew that paper. You are right, in the community analysis they seem to compare Bio* projects against Pharo and not BioSmalltalk. That's weird because the paper is very clear about BioSmalltalk is the name of the library and Pharo is the supporting platform. I will contact the authors because the BioSmalltalk community is very small and I expected that when developing the library. On the other side they use 99% Pharo code... I remember someone asking me about how to do in BioSmalltalk the task proposed in the paper. I answered the analysis is strange, because the flat-file they are parsing (intended for human reading) can be downloaded in XML and parsed easily with a XML pull parser. Or even ASN.1.
BioSmalltalk is faster for some tasks, for example reading/filtering BLAST alignments. I have put special emphasis on that. Maybe I should prepare a post comparing speeds for additional tasks. Thank you for the link. Cheers, Hernán 2016-11-30 11:31 GMT-03:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckw...@gmail.com>: > Hi Hernan, > > apparently BioSmalltalk is the faster in the field of Bio* platforms > (BioPerl, BioPython, BioJava, ...) and the more trendy: > http://www.ijcseonline.org/spl_pub_paper/PID%2023.pdf > > I would love to believe in that ;-) > > But if you read carefully the paper, you will found that authors has > made a dramatic mistake ... They think that Pharo was the name of > BioSmalltalk ... and then they compare with Google Trends, Pharo > against BioPerl, BioPython, ... > > Anyways the statement that BioSmalltalk is the faster is maybe true :-) > Hernan did you know this paper ? > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > >
