On Mar 4, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:35:42 -0600, mikel evins wrote: >> The reason I ask is that MacScheme made it easy to have most of an app >> compiled to bytecode, which was very compact and reasonably efficient, but >> to >> optionally and selectively compile performance-critical procedures to native >> code. [...] >> With MacScheme, the choice of bytecode or native code was a compile-time >> decision controlled on a per-procedure basis by optimization parameters. > > In Racket, all code is compiled to bytecode, and all bytecode is > compiled to native code through a JIT compiler. So, hopefully, this > will not be an issue at all. Good to know. Maybe you're right; maybe human-controlled JIT (which is what the MacScheme strategy amounted to) is redundant. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
