They do work. They do exactly as advertised in the documentation. As far as their usefulness goes, I think it is fair to say that they are not as useful as they could be, or put another way, the set of operations that are future-safe is too small to make them practical for many folks.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:53 PM <mrmyers.random.suf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh. That does seem troubling then. > > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-4, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > >> >> >> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 6:39 PM, mrmyers.ra...@gmail.com 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 to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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.