On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Also, if the algorithms are parallel, you might consider using futures. >> >> >> Good idea. I wonder if anyone has investigated whether it's significantly >> easier to use futures effectively in Typed Racket. Its optimizations are >> designed to avoid allocation. > > I think the way it splits up complex numbers can definitely help, if > you find them useful in your algorithm, but my experience so far with > futures suggests that putting things in Typed Racket won't necessarily > make it a whole lot easier to avoid barricades. It will, however, give > the same speedups that you were talking about, which is definitely > going to be helpful.
In general, the handling of floating point numbers in Typed Racket will avoid allocation and calls to generic arithmetic routines, both of which may improve future parallelism, although as more of the arithmetic is handles in the JIT, this effect goes down. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
