Has anybody done any benchmarks comparing Racket, Gambit, Chicken, or any other
Scheme, for speed?
It seems easier to go from Racket to Gambit or Chicken than from Racket to CL
--- pretty much just a matter of using different libraries. It may even be
possible to have code that compiles under different Scheme systems using a
compiler-switch and wrappers around the comparable libraries to provide a
common API.
I'm learning Scheme. I'm starting out with Gambit rather than Racket on the
assumption that Gambit is the fastest and hence the one that I will end up
using eventually, after I get past the learning stage and begin writing
programs that people other than myself will use, at which time speed will be an
issue. Also, Gambit has a 64-bit x86 assembler, which Racket lacks, and I
primarily intend to use Scheme as an overgrown macro-assembler for
compiler-writing.
P.S. I'm working my way through SICP --- is that generally considered to be the
best way to learn Scheme? I wish there was some way that I could just
flash-program my brain with Scheme, so I could skip all of this learning-curve
and get on with writing programs. :-)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:25:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: daniel rupistraliz avez <danielrupistraliza...@yahoo.es>
To: users@racket-lang.org
Subject: [racket] translate from Racket to Common Lisp
Message-ID: <loom.20121102t171520-...@post.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I would like to make a program that translate from Racket to Common Lisp.
One motivation is speed, for example a recent example in the racket blog about
the 2n+1 problem gives 1200 milliseconds in Racket and 500 in sbcl (without
declaring fixnum or any other optimization).
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
