On Mar 4, 2013, at 9:56 AM, mikel evins <mev...@me.com> wrote: > > 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. >
Oh, except for the case where I want to deploy on iOS, which forbids JIT. Of course, Racket doesn't deliver on iOS anyway, as far as I know, except through the expedient of compiling to Javascript (which may be adequate; we'll soon see.) _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
