At Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:54:25 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Racket can do this somewhat faster, but I suggest any effort be focused
on improvements that are also relevant to substantial programs, and not
on trying to compete on Perl one-liners and poor benchmarks.
Agreed, but in this case, I
Matthew Flatt wrote at 11/03/2011 11:26 AM:
With that and related changes, the example now runs about 3 times as
fast as before on my machine
This is great, Matthew. I suspect that will help some of my apps.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_
On StackOverflow [1], someone reported that Racket's I/O performance
on large files was substantially worse than other languages for a
simple task. I haven't yet tried it on a similarly large volume of
data, but I did see a performance difference relative to Chicken for
large but not huge files,
Racket can do this somewhat faster, but I suggest any effort be focused
on improvements that are also relevant to substantial programs, and not
on trying to compete on Perl one-liners and poor benchmarks.
Details follow...
Trying this 'benchmark' on a 700MB log file (just Linux dmesg output,
4 matches
Mail list logo
