> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Paulo Matos <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Thanks, interesting to see that fully typed programs run faster though.
When I say “fully typed” you need to understand that some basic Racket
code may never be typed and is included here. I am referring to the code
that is under your control and I should add the adverb “usually” to this
> From your 4th point, one could assume that the more a program is typed,
> the less crossing there will be and therefore the better the performance
> will get?
This is unfortunately not correct as stated. It depends on the order in which
you modify the modules. It will be rare that you pick a path along which every
step improves the performance after you picked the worst possible module to
equip with types. Indeed, I conjecture that such paths don’t exist. Asumu,
the original project lead, considered a similar question and I believe it
came to nothing.
>> If you want more specific information, we can post a journal submission that
>> compares several Racket implementations (6.2, 6.3, and 6.4) on a range of
>> programs using functional to ho object-oriented style.
> That would certainly be appreciated.
I have temporarily posted the paper at the following URL:
Ben Greenman is the lead author and has taken this project under his wings. For
any details on the measurements, he’s the man to talk to. In a sense, what we
want is a re-evaluation of this benchmark suite for every release of Racket so
that we know whether we are making progress. We just don’t have the manpower
and machine resources to implement this idea.
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.