Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2


Listening to all this 4.2 performance discussions here and for example at [1] I would like to ask if the is a plan to re-enable performance regression tests for Eclipse (3.8.x / 4.2.x) platform as we had in the past before they were disabled in Juno (see [2]).

If there is no such plan yet, shouldn't we have one?



On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:29:31 +0200, <cross-project-issues-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:21:10 -0400
From: John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I suggest anyone having problems to add constructive details on that bug.
For example profiler output when repeatedly performing a slow operation,
what plugins are installed, whether it is reproducible with vanilla
Eclipse SDK, etc. There are some users reporting pervasive slowdowns, and
for many others it is performing well. Something like a listener leak
could have effects like this in conjunction with particular installed
plugins. It takes time after any major release to isolate and resolve
problems like this.


On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx> wrote:

For various reasons I had to switch my development environment from 4.2 to
3.8 today. I was stunned by the performance improvement after the switch.
The 3.8 platform is much MUCH faster. It boots faster, it closes windows
faster, it shows menus faster, etc. It also seems to consume less memory
and be less buggy. The way things stand right now, there's just no way
I'll switch back to 4.2!

I must say I was very surprised by this. Why is the 4.2 platform what's
being fronted on the Eclipse download page when it's user experience and
quality is lagging behind this much? Is it just me who have had this

Thomas Hallgren


Message: 5
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:29:22 -0700
From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Cross project issues'" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
Message-ID: <001201cd8b6a$76b74950$6425dbf0$@komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


You are certainly not the only one seeing performance issues with 4.2. I go back and forth between 4.2 and 3.8 every day depending on the project I need to work on and the difference is quiet noticeable even on very fast hardware. The part I notice the most is the lengthy close all editors process. After drilling down into some task and opening a few dozen editors, clearing workbench of open editors takes several seconds. I can literally watch tabs disappear one by one. The same operation is practically instantaneous on 3.8.

For stability, user experience and performance reasons, you will find that many third party distros have stayed on 3.8 for Juno.

I don?t begrudge 4.x its growing pains. It is a complex technological shift with a lot of promise. What I find most troubling is the decision process that led to the use of 4.2 for Juno distros. When the decision was made, it was plainly evident that 4.2 wasn?t going to match 3.8 on any of the quality metrics. IDE users might have been ok with quality drop if 4.2 delivered compelling new functionality that you couldn?t get in 3.8, yet there is no tangible functional delta. The value of 4.x platform is for RCP developers and to certain limited extent for IDE plugin developers. Certainly not for IDE users. The refreshed look-n-feel has been touted as a big end user feature of 4.2, but the new look-n-feel itself has numerous issues that leave it looking like an unfinished project.

Sadly, the user reaction that we?ve been seeing over the last several months has been entirely predictable.

- Konstantin

Kind regards,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Andrey Loskutov


Back to the top