Oh. That does seem troubling then.
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-4, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> > As far as I'm aware, futures usually shouldn't improve performance
> outside of networking or hardware-latency type situations. The main goal of
> futures is just time-sharing, not improving performance. It doesn't
> genuinely do things in parallel, it just interleaves the execution of
> several things at once.
> This isn't true. Futures are for parallelism; they just happen to be
> defeated by many, many operations. More to the point, they're not for
> interleaving work. Racket's threads are for that.
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
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.