On Jun 23, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> Do we really want to remove contracts from code just because they
> don't perform as well as hand-written checks?
The code in question is about 15 lines; at least I expect such code to
run fast enough so I'll use it instead of writing my own 15 lines; the
difference is huge (2.5 factor).
> Also, did you try just changing the result contract from `void?' to
> `any/c'?
Did you?
On Jun 24, Robby Findler wrote:
> A factor of 4 for removing those contracts and turning them into
> checks seems suspicious. They should not be that bad. Possibly Eli
> made other changes in there too?
The 4x factor is overall, mostly due to turning it from a
double-linked list to single links. The contracts factor is still
very high: about 2.5x. Specifically:
No contracts (current version):
cpu time: 10341 real time: 10344 gc time: 5156
Original contracts (and I removed the checks from the code):
cpu time: 26205 real time: 26207 gc time: 7382
Same contracts but using any/c:
cpu time: 25862 real time: 25865 gc time: 7338
Using queue/c instead of nonempty-queue/c (add a runtime check instead):
cpu time: 24978 real time: 24981 gc time: 7157
Using the struct predicate directly instead of flat-named-contract:
cpu time: 24838 real time: 24841 gc time: 7131
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
