On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 2:51:26 PM UTC-8, Dan Liebgold wrote:
> Ok, those tests aren't particularly illumating (at least they were easy!)
>
> Is your Racket distribution on a local drive? Network performance can make a
> big difference.
>
The Racket distribution I'm using is on my
Ok, those tests aren't particularly illumating (at least they were easy!)
Is your Racket distribution on a local drive? Network performance can make a
big difference.
We've also found that the minimal Racket distribution can be quite a bit
quicker when pulling in packages outside the main
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 12:08:12 PM UTC-8, Dan Liebgold wrote:
> Are you sure you have up to date .zo files for all your .rkt files?
>
> How's the timing if you add '-c' to your Racket commandline? How about '-j'?
>
These first two tests are with the lazy-require code.
If I add '-c':
$
Are you sure you have up to date .zo files for all your .rkt files?
How's the timing if you add '-c' to your Racket commandline? How about '-j'?
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 4:11:51 PM UTC-8, Lehi Toskin wrote:
> ...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
I just tried that: unfortunately, this stack trace does not seem to
be able to cross the boundary of dynamically required module.
What I see in (continuation-mark-set->context (current-continuation-marks))
are just lines in the "main" Racket module, and no lines that
belong to the non-sexp
Matthew,
Question 1: A factor of 10 is on the high side, but not unusual at the
moment.
There's a pending issue of making sure that `for` loops or other things
are not needlessly instrumented, since they're only part of the
expansion instead of the original code. We haven't gotten back to
Question 1: A factor of 10 is on the high side, but not unusual at the
moment.
There's a pending issue of making sure that `for` loops or other things
are not needlessly instrumented, since they're only part of the
expansion instead of the original code. We haven't gotten back to that,
but I bet
Hello,
I have a program that takes 17 seconds and ~260 MB of memory.
If I use errortrace on it, the numbers grow about tenfold: 150 seconds and
2600+ MB.
That is just compilation; in the runtime the program does almost nothing and
terminates quickly.
I know little about how errortrace works
BOB has a strong focus on functional programming - Racket developers
very welcome!
BOB 2017
Conference
"What happens if we simply use what's best?"
My pleasure.
Good on you for doing the exercise.
Here's a slightly modified version that:
- removes the use of set!: it's cleaner "functional" style to avoid
mutation where possible
- illustrates the use of match-define to unpack world
- other small tweaks and tricks
Dan
#lang
Thank you Dan, that was very helpful! I haven't used that function big-bang but
it seems quite simple.
I also add that counter what you suggested. It take some time to figure out how
I convert that counter's value to image.
--
#lang racket
(require 2htdp/universe)
(require 2htdp/image)
11 matches
Mail list logo
