Thanks for your help James. Let me know what you learn. I will try to rewrite those routines. As indicated for (square? ) I will need to make a table which will slow things down further :-(
About typed racket: my goal is to learn, so I have played with typed racket but didn't get very far (maybe I was overly ambitious, trying to covert some code that really didn't want to be converted). I will try that as well. I would like to be able to use threads with racket as I've found them useful in other environments. Tim, I think places seems like overkill for this, but thanks for your work and the reminder about PE problems (Doh!). -Joe On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:51 AM, James Swaine < james.swa...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > Unfortunately, it is still rather easy to stumble upon a primitive which > unexpectedly blocks futures. > > Are you familiar with Typed Racket? Switching to typed can give you > performance improvements even in sequential programs. In futures programs, > TR can help you avoid blocks because it uses its extra type information to > generate code that uses fast-path primitives wherever possible. I'm > experimenting with this now on your example, so I'll follow up and let you > know what I find out. > > That being said, it's possible that there's some function call in the > hottest part of your loop which still blocks -- in that case, yes, the only > real short-term option is to write your own version of it, unfortunately. > > -James > > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Joe Gilray <jgil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > So I should write my own (gcd ) and (square? ) functions? >> > >> > I can try that, but isn't there a simple way to use threads? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > -Joe >> >> > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
