On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, ro...@racket-lang.org wrote:
robby has updated `master' from 542e256206 to c321f6dd0c.
http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/542e256206..c321f6dd0c
=[ One Commit ]=
Directory summary:
37.6% pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-tes
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
> 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
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 clo
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 I
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
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:25 PM, John Clements
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 GC behavior of TR code?
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 d
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 w
9 matches
Mail list logo
