On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:01:02PM -0800, Brian Adkins wrote: > The more I dig into Racket, the more I like it. It seems like a perfect fit > for both my personality and the type of applications I am, and will be, > writing. For the vast majority of what I need to do, it's a great fit. > > I do occasionally encounter a need for raw speed, so I'm looking for a > complement to Racket for those few times when it's not fast enough. I chatted > briefly about this on IRC the other day, but I thought I'd tap into the > collective wisdom on the mailing list. > > I'm open to suggestions, but I've tentatively narrowed the list down to Rust > and C. I programmed in C/C++ for about a decade, then Java for a decade, and > most recently in Ruby for a decade, so it's been a while since I was an > expert C hacker, and my recent Ruby experience has lessened my polyglotness :)
Consider Gambit and OCaml. OCaml is statically typed, and its compiler uses the static typing in its code generation. Although the stock OCaml interprets byte code, on the x86 and AMD64 traditions the compiler will compile all the way to efficient machine code. Gambit is another Scheme dialect (and thus similar somewhat to Gambti). It normally compiles down to C, and permits you to specify what C code is to be generated for specific user-declared functions. THis might be the language team-up you want. -- hendrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
