Re: [racket-users] beating java (speed)

Yes, I agree with you. Choosing "unsafe" operations is a tradeoff since Typed FFI is unavailable, I need a convenient and practical framework. I am sure, in the future, I will rewrite it without FFI. images/flomap was a great starting point. Anyway, it is a longterm plan. On Sun, Jul 2, 2017

[racket-users] Error when codesigning Racket created executable - codesign_allocate: file not in an order that can be processed

Hi guys I have a Racket based executable that I created using race exe / raco distribute on macOS. I am trying to code sign it now so it passes through the macOS GateKeeper. I had to add a few symlinks and edit the Info.plist to get the Racket framework signed. That worked fine. But when I try

Re: [racket-users] Re: beating java (speed)

>From my experience, being with a factor or 2 or 3 on such code is pretty good. >Just wait a decade :-) > On Jul 2, 2017, at 3:19 PM, 'Shakin Billy' via Racket Users > wrote: > > @ matthias > i'm aware that java got more manpower, but since this is the first

[racket-users] Re: beating java (speed)

@ matthias i'm aware that java got more manpower, but since this is the first time i compare racket and java in terms of speed i didn't know what to expect. I know there are many loop optimizations but it doesn't seem to me many of them apply here since it's just two nested loops without array

Re: [racket-users] beating java (speed)

On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 08:14:19PM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Not that I expect GNU/Linux developers to start implementing a significant > portion of userspace in Racket. Though I have some idea how it might > possibly be made to happen, politically, if people were first ready to > commit