[racket-users] Do you have Racket programs whose performance you care about?

2020-02-28 Thread Lukas Lazarek
PLT @ Northwestern is seeking out programs to help us understand the 
performance of Racket "in the wild".
If you have any Racket applications that you use and care about how it 
performs, please let us know about them in the following survey:  

https://forms.gle/b2eKMZdvXjpRHKL38

Thank you!
PLT @ Northwestern

-- 
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 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/5d660236-790f-4de4-b94d-d4d22eabbccc%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [racket-users] a little bug

2020-02-28 Thread Hendrik Boom
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 07:11:02AM -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> Oh, sorry-- I misunderstood.
> 
> In v7.5, there will be, in some cases, a source location after you
> dismiss that dialog. In the pre-release builds, that's been improved
> somewhat and source location information is more reliably available.

Excellent.

> That said, there are limitations and it isn't always available.

Of course.  If the entire process gets shut down because of memory
 overrun there isn't much left to report on.

> 
> Thanks for using DrR!

It's the easiest way to use Racket.

-- hendrik

> 
> Robby
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:31 AM Hendrik Boom  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:02:31AM -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> > > I agree that would be great. In the meantime, the Run button does a better
> > > job with error reporting in various ways, including this one so hopefully
> > > you can try that?
> >
> > That's what I was using.  There was a popup message that wasn't any more
> > informative.
> > It says:
> >
> > - The evaluation thread is no longer running, so
> >   no evaluation can take place until the next
> >   execution.
> >
> >   The program ran out of memory.
> >   [V]Show thid dialog ext time
> > [Increase memory limit to 256 megabytes][OK]
> >
> > I'm mentioning this to indicate a way the drracket uer-interface can be
> > improved, especially for beginners.
> >
> > I'm not asking Racket maintainers to step in and debug my code.
> >
> > (Further analysis (by deleting code until there was almost nothing left)
> > indicates it crashed during processing the #lang line at the start.
> > I have started private correspondence with the language author.)
> >
> > -- hendrik
> > >
> > > Robby
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:45 AM Hendrik Boom  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When Racket detects the out-of-memory condition during "background
> > > > processing", it would be useful i the out-of-memory message were to 
> > > > point
> > > > out which particular piece of source text it was having trouble with.  
> > > > Just
> > > > the line number where the expression started that the REPL was having
> > > > trouble with would be a huge help.
> > > >
> > > > And by the way, if Dr. Racket were to be a she, she would be addressed 
> > > > in
> > > > Quebec as Dre. Racket.
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, 5 February 2016 19:19:46 UTC-5, jon stenerson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> lol. Don't be sorry.  Speaking of anthropomorphization, I really love 
> > > >> Dr
> > > >> Racket and hope I didn't hurt his feelings (Or is Dr Racket a she?). I
> > > >> employ his services whenever I can. I don't mean to be a whiner; he
> > > >> deserves better than that!
> > > >>
> > > >> Jon
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/5/2016 3:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> > > >> > Sorry we can't do better. And it is really amazing how I actually
> > > >> > think so anthropomorphically about these things. :) That really was a
> > > >> > literal brain dump.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Robby
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, jon stenerson 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On 2/5/2016 1:55 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> > > >> >>> In general, DrRacket does not promise to avoid this situation. Let 
> > > >> >>> me
> > > >> >>> explain a little bit. This program is effectively equivalent to 
> > > >> >>> this
> > > >> >>> one:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> #lang racket/base
> > > >> >>> (define (run l)
> > > >> >>> (run (cons 'x l)))
> > > >> >>> (run '())
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> (but running at compile time, which is why things happen
> > > >> >>> automatically, but lets leave that aside for now).
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> So when you run that program, DrRacket is asking the operating 
> > > >> >>> system
> > > >> >>> for all of its memory. At some point, the operating system says
> > > >> >>> "sorry, no, we're out of memory" and since the program running 
> > > >> >>> inside
> > > >> >>> DrRacket doesn't really care that we're out of memory, the 
> > > >> >>> operating
> > > >> >>> system responds with "die!". And so DrRacket dies.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> There are two ways we try to do better. First: we can set limits on
> > > >> >>> the memory. But if the limit is set to be higher than the amount of
> > > >> >>> memory available on the machine, then it is as if the memory limit
> > > >> >>> isn't set. Also worth noting at this point: the way that DrRacket's
> > > >> >>> counting of "how much memory" is only loosely related to the way 
> > > >> >>> that
> > > >> >>> your machine's vendor or the OS counts. There are some constant
> > > >> >>> factors of difference there that depend on things like how the
> > > >> garbage
> > > >> >>> collector is configured and how many other programs are running on
> > > >> >>> your system and what they are doing (like the OS itself likes to 
> > > >> >>> have
> > > >> >>> some of the memory and it (quite reasonably) doesn't want to 

Re: [racket-users] a little bug

2020-02-28 Thread Robby Findler
Oh, sorry-- I misunderstood.

In v7.5, there will be, in some cases, a source location after you
dismiss that dialog. In the pre-release builds, that's been improved
somewhat and source location information is more reliably available.
That said, there are limitations and it isn't always available.

Thanks for using DrR!

Robby

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:31 AM Hendrik Boom  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:02:31AM -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> > I agree that would be great. In the meantime, the Run button does a better
> > job with error reporting in various ways, including this one so hopefully
> > you can try that?
>
> That's what I was using.  There was a popup message that wasn't any more
> informative.
> It says:
>
> - The evaluation thread is no longer running, so
>   no evaluation can take place until the next
>   execution.
>
>   The program ran out of memory.
>   [V]Show thid dialog ext time
> [Increase memory limit to 256 megabytes][OK]
>
> I'm mentioning this to indicate a way the drracket uer-interface can be
> improved, especially for beginners.
>
> I'm not asking Racket maintainers to step in and debug my code.
>
> (Further analysis (by deleting code until there was almost nothing left)
> indicates it crashed during processing the #lang line at the start.
> I have started private correspondence with the language author.)
>
> -- hendrik
> >
> > Robby
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:45 AM Hendrik Boom  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > When Racket detects the out-of-memory condition during "background
> > > processing", it would be useful i the out-of-memory message were to point
> > > out which particular piece of source text it was having trouble with.  
> > > Just
> > > the line number where the expression started that the REPL was having
> > > trouble with would be a huge help.
> > >
> > > And by the way, if Dr. Racket were to be a she, she would be addressed in
> > > Quebec as Dre. Racket.
> > >
> > > On Friday, 5 February 2016 19:19:46 UTC-5, jon stenerson wrote:
> > >
> > >> lol. Don't be sorry.  Speaking of anthropomorphization, I really love Dr
> > >> Racket and hope I didn't hurt his feelings (Or is Dr Racket a she?). I
> > >> employ his services whenever I can. I don't mean to be a whiner; he
> > >> deserves better than that!
> > >>
> > >> Jon
> > >>
> > >> On 2/5/2016 3:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> > >> > Sorry we can't do better. And it is really amazing how I actually
> > >> > think so anthropomorphically about these things. :) That really was a
> > >> > literal brain dump.
> > >> >
> > >> > Robby
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, jon stenerson 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 2/5/2016 1:55 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> > >> >>> In general, DrRacket does not promise to avoid this situation. Let me
> > >> >>> explain a little bit. This program is effectively equivalent to this
> > >> >>> one:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> #lang racket/base
> > >> >>> (define (run l)
> > >> >>> (run (cons 'x l)))
> > >> >>> (run '())
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> (but running at compile time, which is why things happen
> > >> >>> automatically, but lets leave that aside for now).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So when you run that program, DrRacket is asking the operating system
> > >> >>> for all of its memory. At some point, the operating system says
> > >> >>> "sorry, no, we're out of memory" and since the program running inside
> > >> >>> DrRacket doesn't really care that we're out of memory, the operating
> > >> >>> system responds with "die!". And so DrRacket dies.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> There are two ways we try to do better. First: we can set limits on
> > >> >>> the memory. But if the limit is set to be higher than the amount of
> > >> >>> memory available on the machine, then it is as if the memory limit
> > >> >>> isn't set. Also worth noting at this point: the way that DrRacket's
> > >> >>> counting of "how much memory" is only loosely related to the way that
> > >> >>> your machine's vendor or the OS counts. There are some constant
> > >> >>> factors of difference there that depend on things like how the
> > >> garbage
> > >> >>> collector is configured and how many other programs are running on
> > >> >>> your system and what they are doing (like the OS itself likes to have
> > >> >>> some of the memory and it (quite reasonably) doesn't want to share
> > >> >>> that memory).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The second way is that the OS will sometimes say "you are about to
> > >> >>> cause me to exhaust all of the system's memory and if you do that, I
> > >> >>> will kill you" at which point the GC inside Racket responds with
> > >> >>> "okay, I'll just die first". The main advantage of this is that you
> > >> >>> get an error message saying "out of memory" from Racket instead of an
> > >> >>> error message saying "I killed your program" from the OS (which is
> > >> the
> > >> >>> message you're getting). It turns out to be 

Re: [racket-users] a little bug

2020-02-28 Thread Hendrik Boom
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:02:31AM -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> I agree that would be great. In the meantime, the Run button does a better
> job with error reporting in various ways, including this one so hopefully
> you can try that?

That's what I was using.  There was a popup message that wasn't any more 
informative.
It says:

- The evaluation thread is no longer running, so
  no evaluation can take place until the next
  execution.

  The program ran out of memory.
  [V]Show thid dialog ext time
[Increase memory limit to 256 megabytes][OK]

I'm mentioning this to indicate a way the drracket uer-interface can be 
improved, especially for beginners.

I'm not asking Racket maintainers to step in and debug my code.

(Further analysis (by deleting code until there was almost nothing left) 
indicates it crashed during processing the #lang line at the start.
I have started private correspondence with the language author.)

-- hendrik
> 
> Robby
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:45 AM Hendrik Boom  wrote:
> 
> >
> > When Racket detects the out-of-memory condition during "background
> > processing", it would be useful i the out-of-memory message were to point
> > out which particular piece of source text it was having trouble with.  Just
> > the line number where the expression started that the REPL was having
> > trouble with would be a huge help.
> >
> > And by the way, if Dr. Racket were to be a she, she would be addressed in
> > Quebec as Dre. Racket.
> >
> > On Friday, 5 February 2016 19:19:46 UTC-5, jon stenerson wrote:
> >
> >> lol. Don't be sorry.  Speaking of anthropomorphization, I really love Dr
> >> Racket and hope I didn't hurt his feelings (Or is Dr Racket a she?). I
> >> employ his services whenever I can. I don't mean to be a whiner; he
> >> deserves better than that!
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On 2/5/2016 3:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> >> > Sorry we can't do better. And it is really amazing how I actually
> >> > think so anthropomorphically about these things. :) That really was a
> >> > literal brain dump.
> >> >
> >> > Robby
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, jon stenerson 
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2/5/2016 1:55 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> >> >>> In general, DrRacket does not promise to avoid this situation. Let me
> >> >>> explain a little bit. This program is effectively equivalent to this
> >> >>> one:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> #lang racket/base
> >> >>> (define (run l)
> >> >>> (run (cons 'x l)))
> >> >>> (run '())
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (but running at compile time, which is why things happen
> >> >>> automatically, but lets leave that aside for now).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So when you run that program, DrRacket is asking the operating system
> >> >>> for all of its memory. At some point, the operating system says
> >> >>> "sorry, no, we're out of memory" and since the program running inside
> >> >>> DrRacket doesn't really care that we're out of memory, the operating
> >> >>> system responds with "die!". And so DrRacket dies.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There are two ways we try to do better. First: we can set limits on
> >> >>> the memory. But if the limit is set to be higher than the amount of
> >> >>> memory available on the machine, then it is as if the memory limit
> >> >>> isn't set. Also worth noting at this point: the way that DrRacket's
> >> >>> counting of "how much memory" is only loosely related to the way that
> >> >>> your machine's vendor or the OS counts. There are some constant
> >> >>> factors of difference there that depend on things like how the
> >> garbage
> >> >>> collector is configured and how many other programs are running on
> >> >>> your system and what they are doing (like the OS itself likes to have
> >> >>> some of the memory and it (quite reasonably) doesn't want to share
> >> >>> that memory).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The second way is that the OS will sometimes say "you are about to
> >> >>> cause me to exhaust all of the system's memory and if you do that, I
> >> >>> will kill you" at which point the GC inside Racket responds with
> >> >>> "okay, I'll just die first". The main advantage of this is that you
> >> >>> get an error message saying "out of memory" from Racket instead of an
> >> >>> error message saying "I killed your program" from the OS (which is
> >> the
> >> >>> message you're getting). It turns out to be remarkably difficult to
> >> >>> get this error message to work in all situations. We're better than
> >> we
> >> >>> used to be at it, but at some level, the best we can do in that case
> >> >>> is really just to change the text of the error message. When we're
> >> out
> >> >>> of memory like that, it's very very hard to recover if the limits are
> >> >>> not set up ahead of time (i.e. back to the previous paragraph).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I hope this clears up the issue somewhat.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In the meantime, I suggest you lower the memory limit for your
> >> machine.
> >> >>>
> >> 

Re: [racket-users] a little bug

2020-02-28 Thread Robby Findler
I agree that would be great. In the meantime, the Run button does a better
job with error reporting in various ways, including this one so hopefully
you can try that?

Robby

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:45 AM Hendrik Boom  wrote:

>
> When Racket detects the out-of-memory condition during "background
> processing", it would be useful i the out-of-memory message were to point
> out which particular piece of source text it was having trouble with.  Just
> the line number where the expression started that the REPL was having
> trouble with would be a huge help.
>
> And by the way, if Dr. Racket were to be a she, she would be addressed in
> Quebec as Dre. Racket.
>
> On Friday, 5 February 2016 19:19:46 UTC-5, jon stenerson wrote:
>
>> lol. Don't be sorry.  Speaking of anthropomorphization, I really love Dr
>> Racket and hope I didn't hurt his feelings (Or is Dr Racket a she?). I
>> employ his services whenever I can. I don't mean to be a whiner; he
>> deserves better than that!
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 2/5/2016 3:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> > Sorry we can't do better. And it is really amazing how I actually
>> > think so anthropomorphically about these things. :) That really was a
>> > literal brain dump.
>> >
>> > Robby
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, jon stenerson 
>> wrote:
>> >> Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2/5/2016 1:55 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> >>> In general, DrRacket does not promise to avoid this situation. Let me
>> >>> explain a little bit. This program is effectively equivalent to this
>> >>> one:
>> >>>
>> >>> #lang racket/base
>> >>> (define (run l)
>> >>> (run (cons 'x l)))
>> >>> (run '())
>> >>>
>> >>> (but running at compile time, which is why things happen
>> >>> automatically, but lets leave that aside for now).
>> >>>
>> >>> So when you run that program, DrRacket is asking the operating system
>> >>> for all of its memory. At some point, the operating system says
>> >>> "sorry, no, we're out of memory" and since the program running inside
>> >>> DrRacket doesn't really care that we're out of memory, the operating
>> >>> system responds with "die!". And so DrRacket dies.
>> >>>
>> >>> There are two ways we try to do better. First: we can set limits on
>> >>> the memory. But if the limit is set to be higher than the amount of
>> >>> memory available on the machine, then it is as if the memory limit
>> >>> isn't set. Also worth noting at this point: the way that DrRacket's
>> >>> counting of "how much memory" is only loosely related to the way that
>> >>> your machine's vendor or the OS counts. There are some constant
>> >>> factors of difference there that depend on things like how the
>> garbage
>> >>> collector is configured and how many other programs are running on
>> >>> your system and what they are doing (like the OS itself likes to have
>> >>> some of the memory and it (quite reasonably) doesn't want to share
>> >>> that memory).
>> >>>
>> >>> The second way is that the OS will sometimes say "you are about to
>> >>> cause me to exhaust all of the system's memory and if you do that, I
>> >>> will kill you" at which point the GC inside Racket responds with
>> >>> "okay, I'll just die first". The main advantage of this is that you
>> >>> get an error message saying "out of memory" from Racket instead of an
>> >>> error message saying "I killed your program" from the OS (which is
>> the
>> >>> message you're getting). It turns out to be remarkably difficult to
>> >>> get this error message to work in all situations. We're better than
>> we
>> >>> used to be at it, but at some level, the best we can do in that case
>> >>> is really just to change the text of the error message. When we're
>> out
>> >>> of memory like that, it's very very hard to recover if the limits are
>> >>> not set up ahead of time (i.e. back to the previous paragraph).
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope this clears up the issue somewhat.
>> >>>
>> >>> In the meantime, I suggest you lower the memory limit for your
>> machine.
>> >>>
>> >>> Robby
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:53 AM, jon stenerson 
>>
>>
> >>> wrote:
>>  Actually you don't even have to run the program. With memory limit
>> set to
>>  1024, just open a file containing the expression and wait. After a
>> minute
>>  or
>>  two DrRacket puts up a MSVC runtime error dialog.
>> 
>> 
>>  On 2/5/2016 9:39 AM, jon stenerson wrote:
>> > Setting the limit lower helped. Thanks. I did not see that message
>> about
>> > Background Expansion Terminated before. Now I do.
>> >
>> > Jon
>> >
>> > On 2/5/2016 6:55 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> >> It took a while for mine for the custodian limit to be reached and
>> for
>> >> the expansion to run out of memory. It may be that the threshhold
>> for
>> >> the memory use is too high on some systems. Maybe the right thing
>> is
>> >> to set the default a bit lower?
>> >>
>> >> Jon: if you open 

Re: [racket-users] a little bug

2020-02-28 Thread Hendrik Boom

When Racket detects the out-of-memory condition during "background 
processing", it would be useful i the out-of-memory message were to point 
out which particular piece of source text it was having trouble with.  Just 
the line number where the expression started that the REPL was having 
trouble with would be a huge help.

And by the way, if Dr. Racket were to be a she, she would be addressed in 
Quebec as Dre. Racket.

On Friday, 5 February 2016 19:19:46 UTC-5, jon stenerson wrote:
>
> lol. Don't be sorry.  Speaking of anthropomorphization, I really love Dr 
> Racket and hope I didn't hurt his feelings (Or is Dr Racket a she?). I 
> employ his services whenever I can. I don't mean to be a whiner; he 
> deserves better than that! 
>
> Jon 
>
> On 2/5/2016 3:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote: 
> > Sorry we can't do better. And it is really amazing how I actually 
> > think so anthropomorphically about these things. :) That really was a 
> > literal brain dump. 
> > 
> > Robby 
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, jon stenerson  > wrote: 
> >> Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 2/5/2016 1:55 PM, Robby Findler wrote: 
> >>> In general, DrRacket does not promise to avoid this situation. Let me 
> >>> explain a little bit. This program is effectively equivalent to this 
> >>> one: 
> >>> 
> >>> #lang racket/base 
> >>> (define (run l) 
> >>> (run (cons 'x l))) 
> >>> (run '()) 
> >>> 
> >>> (but running at compile time, which is why things happen 
> >>> automatically, but lets leave that aside for now). 
> >>> 
> >>> So when you run that program, DrRacket is asking the operating system 
> >>> for all of its memory. At some point, the operating system says 
> >>> "sorry, no, we're out of memory" and since the program running inside 
> >>> DrRacket doesn't really care that we're out of memory, the operating 
> >>> system responds with "die!". And so DrRacket dies. 
> >>> 
> >>> There are two ways we try to do better. First: we can set limits on 
> >>> the memory. But if the limit is set to be higher than the amount of 
> >>> memory available on the machine, then it is as if the memory limit 
> >>> isn't set. Also worth noting at this point: the way that DrRacket's 
> >>> counting of "how much memory" is only loosely related to the way that 
> >>> your machine's vendor or the OS counts. There are some constant 
> >>> factors of difference there that depend on things like how the garbage 
> >>> collector is configured and how many other programs are running on 
> >>> your system and what they are doing (like the OS itself likes to have 
> >>> some of the memory and it (quite reasonably) doesn't want to share 
> >>> that memory). 
> >>> 
> >>> The second way is that the OS will sometimes say "you are about to 
> >>> cause me to exhaust all of the system's memory and if you do that, I 
> >>> will kill you" at which point the GC inside Racket responds with 
> >>> "okay, I'll just die first". The main advantage of this is that you 
> >>> get an error message saying "out of memory" from Racket instead of an 
> >>> error message saying "I killed your program" from the OS (which is the 
> >>> message you're getting). It turns out to be remarkably difficult to 
> >>> get this error message to work in all situations. We're better than we 
> >>> used to be at it, but at some level, the best we can do in that case 
> >>> is really just to change the text of the error message. When we're out 
> >>> of memory like that, it's very very hard to recover if the limits are 
> >>> not set up ahead of time (i.e. back to the previous paragraph). 
> >>> 
> >>> I hope this clears up the issue somewhat. 
> >>> 
> >>> In the meantime, I suggest you lower the memory limit for your 
> machine. 
> >>> 
> >>> Robby 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:53 AM, jon stenerson  > 
> >>> wrote: 
>  Actually you don't even have to run the program. With memory limit 
> set to 
>  1024, just open a file containing the expression and wait. After a 
> minute 
>  or 
>  two DrRacket puts up a MSVC runtime error dialog. 
>  
>  
>  On 2/5/2016 9:39 AM, jon stenerson wrote: 
> > Setting the limit lower helped. Thanks. I did not see that message 
> about 
> > Background Expansion Terminated before. Now I do. 
> > 
> > Jon 
> > 
> > On 2/5/2016 6:55 AM, Robby Findler wrote: 
> >> It took a while for mine for the custodian limit to be reached and 
> for 
> >> the expansion to run out of memory. It may be that the threshhold 
> for 
> >> the memory use is too high on some systems. Maybe the right thing 
> is 
> >> to set the default a bit lower? 
> >> 
> >> Jon: if you open the "Racket" menu you should see a "Limit 
> Memory..." 
> >> menu item. How does DrRacket do if you change the number in there 
> to 
> >> 256 and then paste the program into the definitions window? Do you 
> see 
> >> the red message at the bottom of