On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Hernán Morales Durand <hernan.mora...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
For me this paper is crappy and this kind of journal not really good. So I'm not surprised, > 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. It would be nice to do as real benchmark between the different platforms on real examples. A paper for IWST 2017 ? ;-) Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
