On a tangent, if you run your Racket on Linux (like anyone would use anything else :0 ) you can "install" *.rkt files as executables with binfmt.
Very Short (no validation) Path 1) Create a shell script runracket.rkt in your racket installation bin. i.e. /usr/local/racket/bin/runracket #! /bin/sh racket -tm $1 2) Use your package manager to install binfmt. 3) Register .rkt files as executables handled by runracket. As root: a) cd /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/ b) echo ':RunRacket:E::rkt::/usr/local/racket/bin/runracket:' > register 4) Have a sherbet. Then assuming you have a simple helloworld.rkt file with a "main" your Racket file is now just another shell or executable. ray@rpr:~$ ./helloworld.rkt Hello there. Obviously the above should be made more robust, adjusted be installed on bootup etc, but that is the basic idea. Decent odds a Mac can do this as well. Better odds Eli has something done along these lines polished to perfection. : ) To remove the entry echo -1 to the entry. $ echo -1 RunRacket On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean McBeth <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps the EXEs take longer because they are not using a shared image of > Racket, thus the OS must load code that is 99% equivalent from two > different disk locations. > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Manfred Lotz <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, 8 May 2013 07:31:37 -0400 >> Carl Eastlund <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Manfred Lotz >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, 8 May 2013 06:19:27 -0400 >> > > Carl Eastlund <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I'm seeing similar results on my end; I timed by first running >> > > > "raco make" on both files, then timing "racket" on both. I think >> > > > what we're seeing is a small startup time cost on Typed Racket. >> > > > I ran a longer benchmark and Typed Racket edges out untyped >> > > > Racket if I run a few million iterations (given this is such a >> > > > short computation). The expressions I used are: >> > > > >> > > > ;; utest.rkt >> > > > (void >> > > > (for/list {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]} >> > > > (distance >> > > > (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1)) >> > > > (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6))))) >> > > > >> > > > and >> > > > >> > > > ;; test.rkt >> > > > (void >> > > > (for/list: : (Listof Float) {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]} >> > > > (distance >> > > > (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1)) >> > > > (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6))))) >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I see just under 5 seconds for test.rkt and just over 5 seconds >> > > > for utest.rkt. So there's a fraction of a second extra startup >> > > > time for Typed Racket, but it takes less time for each subsequent >> > > > computation, so the difference depends on how much "real" work >> > > > you do after startup. I don't know what causes that startup >> > > > cost, but hopefully this kind of benchmark will be useful to the >> > > > Typed Racket maintainers in closing the gap for future versions. >> > > > So, thanks for the example, Manfred! >> > > > >> > > >> > > Hi Carl, >> > > This is interesting. If I run it I have around 5 seconds for the >> > > typed version and around 4 seconds for the untyped version. My >> > > system is a 64bit Linux. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Manfred >> > > >> > >> > What I ran was: >> > >> > raco make test.rkt utest.rkt && time racket test.rkt && time racket >> > utest.rkt >> > >> > Just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, does that give >> > you the same results you saw before? >> > >> > >> >> Yep, I did something different: >> >> Now going your way I get 3.7 sec for typed and 4.1 sec for untyped. It >> is interesting to note that if I do raco exe for both the executables >> run longer: 4 sec for typed and 4.7 sec for untyped. >> >> >> >> > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Manfred Lotz >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi there, >> > > > > I did a small test using typed racket. >> > > > > >> > > > > This is an example from the documentation: >> > > > > >> > > > > #lang typed/racket >> > > > > ;; test.rkt >> > > > > >> > > > > (struct: pt ([x : Float] [y : Float])) >> > > > > >> > > > > (: distance (pt pt -> Float)) >> > > > > (define (distance p1 p2) >> > > > > (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1))) >> > > > > (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1)))))) >> > > > > >> > > > > (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6)) >> > > > > >> > > > > This is the untyped version: >> > > > > #lang racket >> > > > > ;; utest.rkt >> > > > > >> > > > > (struct pt (x y)) >> > > > > >> > > > > (define (distance p1 p2) >> > > > > (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1))) >> > > > > (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1)))))) >> > > > > >> > > > > (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6)) >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Now running both: >> > > > > time racket test.rkt >> > > > > 4.675467891024383 >> > > > > racket test.rkt 1.24s user 0.08s system 99% cpu 1.333 total >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > time racket utest.rkt >> > > > > 4.675467891024383 >> > > > > racket utest.rkt 0.22s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.248 total >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > It seems the typed version needs a lot of time for the type >> > > > > checking. The time for time checking could be cut mostly by: >> > > > > >> > > > > raco exe test.rkt >> > > > > time ./test >> > > > > 4.675467891024383 >> > > > > ./test 0.49s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.531 total >> > > > > >> > > > > But still runtime is more than twice as long. I could get the >> > > > > impression that typed racket is generally slower. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Question: Is there any conclusion to be drawn from this (like >> > > > > that typed racket is slower than 'normal' racket)? Or is my >> > > > > test just a bad test? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Manfred >> > > >> > >> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
