On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Berthold Bäuml wrote: > Nevertheless, my original motivation for the little test was to get an > impression of what performance could be achieved in purely Typed Racket for > numerical algorithms. Would it in principle be possible to come close to pure > C-code performance (using the same algorithm) when using a > floating-point-implementation?
This is an interesting challenge for all layers involved here: -- typed racket -- racket plus unsafe (the target language) -- the compiler -- and possibly the optimization coach But we need to be careful to compare apples and apples (as much as we can). Our doubles aren't the same range as C++'s. They will always carry a 'tag'. Our vectors have a different layout, and that has performance implications. Finally, our goal isn't high performance -- we would have to raise a lot more funding and employ pure compiler people, memory hierarchy people (a C++ compiler can account for cache sizes and memory placement), etc. We should still try to do a good job. -- Matthias ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
