Eli Barzilay wrote at 04/24/2011 09:01 PM:
Related to the other thing I said: if you have code that depends on fast assoc-ing, and you don't have cycles, then rolling your own version is probably going to be faster anyway.
Good point. I believe this was not case when I was profiling several different implementations of certain list procedures under PLT 4.2.x (e.g., calling C "assq" was faster on our large-ish alists than what should have been optimal Scheme code for doing the same on acyclic alists), but the JIT has improved since then.
I think this is not a showstopper situation, and I have a few app-specific optimizations ready in my back pocket if necessary, so that this app can upgrade to new Racket versions without giving up its pervasive use of alists. (The original architect had good reasons to use alists that way, I have to mention.)
-- http://www.neilvandyke.org/ _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
