Re: [racket-users] updated Racket-on-Chez status

2019-02-01 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:08:35 -0500, David Storrs wrote: > One thing that surprised me is > that there are a handful of tests (tak1, dynamic2, tak, mazefun, > maze2, collatz-q, collatz) where Racket/CS actually outperformed CS. > How is that possible? I have not investigated closely, but Racket CS

Re: [racket-users] updated Racket-on-Chez status

2019-01-31 Thread David Storrs
Thank you for all the hard work you've put into this, everyone. The benchmark graphs are impressive! One thing that surprised me is that there are a handful of tests (tak1, dynamic2, tak, mazefun, maze2, collatz-q, collatz) where Racket/CS actually outperformed CS. How is that possible? On Thu,

Re: [racket-users] updated Racket-on-Chez status

2019-01-31 Thread Laurent
Just wanted to say thank you for the update and for the honest report. I look forward to using Racket CS, and to seeing how easily new features can be incorporated :) On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:49 PM Matthew Flatt wrote: > Here's a new status report on Racket CS: > >

Re: [racket-users] updated Racket-on-Chez status

2019-01-30 Thread Luke Whittlesey
This is really impressive work! On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:49 AM Matthew Flatt wrote: > Here's a new status report on Racket CS: > > http://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.html > > Short version: Racket CS is done in a useful sense, but we'll wait > until it gets better

[racket-users] updated Racket-on-Chez status

2019-01-29 Thread Matthew Flatt
Here's a new status report on Racket CS: http://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.html Short version: Racket CS is done in a useful sense, but we'll wait until it gets better before making it the default Racket implementation. Matthew -- You received this message because