Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated

2013-12-11 Thread Matthias Felleisen
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: numeric primitives implemented in Typed Racket are faster than the same primitives implemented in C. Halleluja! _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated

2013-12-11 Thread Stephen Bloch
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: numeric primitives implemented in Typed Racket are faster than the same primitives implemented in C. Whoa! How did that happen? Stephen Bloch sbl...@adelphi.edu GPG key at http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sbloch.pubkey.asc signature.asc

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated

2013-12-11 Thread Neil Toronto
On 12/11/2013 01:55 PM, Stephen Bloch wrote: On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: numeric primitives implemented in Typed Racket are faster than the same primitives implemented in C. Whoa! How did that happen? Whoa! That's not what I meant! O_o I said we might be getting

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated

2013-12-11 Thread Neil Toronto
On 12/11/2013 02:49 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: On 12/11/2013 01:55 PM, Stephen Bloch wrote: On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: numeric primitives implemented in Typed Racket are faster than the same primitives implemented in C. Whoa! How did that happen? Whoa! That's not what

[racket-dev] TR performance (was: Re: [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated)

2013-12-11 Thread John Clements
On Dec 11, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: On 12/11/2013 02:49 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: On 12/11/2013 01:55 PM, Stephen Bloch wrote: On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: numeric primitives implemented in Typed Racket are faster than the same primitives implemented in C.

Re: [racket-dev] TR performance (was: Re: [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated)

2013-12-11 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:25 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: Wow! I had no idea TR was that fast. In fairness, much of this is that Racket is that fast -- Matthew's put a lot of work into the JIT over the last few years. Related question: how hard is it to reason about the

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated

2013-12-11 Thread Robby Findler
I see that TR's type-contract returns (- (flat-named-contract (quote Float) flonum?) (flat-named-contract (quote Float) flonum?)) for the type (Float - Float), but it could return (- (flat-named-contract (quote Float) flonum?) any) which wouldn't do any result value checking (this being

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27909: master branch updated

2013-12-11 Thread Eric Dobson
Removing the return value checking is in the works. It actually is removing all of the checks that would blame typed code, so higher order functions/datastructure get improvements too. It is actually functional the last time I checked, but lacking documentation which is what is holding up merging