Hi,
On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:32:39 +0200 Peter Bex wrote:
> If anyone wants to add it to the chicken-benchmark repo, I would
> recommend removing the writing of the output file, as that's really
> not where the bottleneck is, and writing a file isn't very nice in a
> benchmark suite. Also, the "(u
>> This is a terribly written program. It uses 3-element lists as vectors
>> (including higher-order "vector" arithmetic using "map") and allocates
>> like hell. The compiler can not do much with this code, and it
>> produces CPS calls everywhere.
>
> I take it you are referring to the {add, sub,
Hi Dan,
On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 09:34:12 -0700 Dan Leslie wrote:
> Perhaps it's because of the industries in which I've worked (gaming,
> embedded systems and enterprise SaaS), but I've not really experienced
> development where performance wasn't a top or near-top priority. Part of
> why I raised t
Felix Winkelmann writes:
> I'm a compiler-writer, my job is to be paranoid about performance.
> But otherwise raw speed is in most cases secondary (try to run large
> real-world programs on Larceny or Stalin and you know what I mean.)
>
> That there are so many implementors in the Lisp and Scheme
Peter Bex writes:
> I have a solution in the works for the particular problem of slow
> numbers. This is in a CHICKEN 5 branch I've been working on, which
> I will announce in a week or so.
Colour me excited. :)
-Dan
--
-Dan Leslie
___
Chicken-hac
Felix Winkelmann writes:
> This is a terribly written program. It uses 3-element lists as vectors
> (including higher-order "vector" arithmetic using "map") and allocates
> like hell. The compiler can not do much with this code, and it
> produces CPS calls everywhere.
I take it you are referring
On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 14:43:42 +0200 Peter Bex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:35:38PM +, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:32:39 +0200 Peter Bex wrote:
>>
>> > If anyone wants to add it to the chicken-benchmark repo, I would
>> > recommend removing the writing of
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:35:38PM +, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:32:39 +0200 Peter Bex wrote:
>
> > If anyone wants to add it to the chicken-benchmark repo, I would
> > recommend removing the writing of the output file, as that's really
> > not where the bo
Hi,
On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:32:39 +0200 Peter Bex wrote:
> If anyone wants to add it to the chicken-benchmark repo, I would
> recommend removing the writing of the output file, as that's really
> not where the bottleneck is, and writing a file isn't very nice in a
> benchmark suite. Also, the "(u
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
> That there are so many implementors in the Lisp and Scheme community
> probably makes this irrational emphasis on (execution-time)
> performance so apparent in these groups. Or it's the remains of the
> trauma of the AI-Winter, I don't know (and I don't care anymore.)
> Nowadays anyone who knows how to use a stop watch (or the modern
> equivalent time(1)) on some code (sometimes the first they write in a
> new language) tends to publish the results as a generalized benchmark.
> People have argued like this for ages, it's the all preserving google
> cache that sh
> I just had this crazy idea of new tooling that would help the curious
> programmer to find the line of code that triggers a lot of allocation,
> or find the line of code that causes a lot of GCs.
One could extend the profiling machinery to also trace and count
allocations (the compiler already k
> Or maybe there's some small mistake in our implementation that causes
> it to retain too much data. I'm not sure of course, just theorizing,
> because even though it generates a lot of garbage, my gut says it
> shouldn't need this many major collections. But my gut has been wrong
> often enough
* Felix Winkelmann [150407 09:44]:
> This is a terribly written program. It uses 3-element lists as vectors
> (including higher-order "vector" arithmetic using "map") and allocates
> like hell. The compiler can not do much with this code, and it
> produces CPS calls everywhere.
After reading the
* Felix Winkelmann [150407 10:41]:
> But I'm sick and tired of people throwing badly written code into the
> net and making gross assumptions about implementation performance. The
> possible options, the search-space available is massive and a little
> difference in programming style can make a va
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:32:39AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:41:32AM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> > Indeed, I was not trying to make it look otherwise. Apparently Flatt
> > and Kawei did an excellent job in optimizing their implementations, no
> > doubt about that.
I
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:41:32AM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> Indeed, I was not trying to make it look otherwise. Apparently Flatt
> and Kawei did an excellent job in optimizing their implementations, no
> doubt about that.
Or maybe there's some small mistake in our implementation that cause
>> This is a terribly written program. It uses 3-element lists as vectors
>> (including higher-order "vector" arithmetic using "map") and allocates
>> like hell. The compiler can not do much with this code, and it
>> produces CPS calls everywhere.
>
> It's still rather interesting that Racket and
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:43:55AM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> > A discussion has been raised on comp.lang.scheme regarding a simple
> > raytracer and the performance it poses in various schemes. In this,
> > Gauche an Racket outperform Chicken, and Racket does so
> > resoundingly. To be frank
From: Dan Leslie
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] Any thoughts on performance woes?
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:28:49 -0700
> A discussion has been raised on comp.lang.scheme regarding a simple
> raytracer and the performance it poses in various schemes. In this,
> Gauche an Racket outperfor
A discussion has been raised on comp.lang.scheme regarding a simple
raytracer and the performance it poses in various schemes. In this,
Gauche an Racket outperform Chicken, and Racket does so
resoundingly. To be frank, it looks rather troubling for Chicken.
I had a go at looking at what Chicken wa
21 matches
Mail list logo
