Re: [racket-users] Re: [racket] Web Framework Benchmarks

2020-06-08 Thread Bogdan Popa
Yury Bulka writes: > Wow, from 695 requests per second to 49,516 is a huge improvement! > > Since we were comparing to django previously, it's now much closer with > django (which does 78,132 rps.) I expect the Racket benchmark will do even better on TechEmpower's hw than it did on mine

[racket-users] Re: Andy Wingo's fold

2020-06-08 Thread Stephen De Gabrielle
Hi Catonano Did you resolve this Kind regards Stephen On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 9:16:14 AM UTC, Catonano wrote: > > Hi, > in Guile there are some modules inspired by Andy Wingos paper: > "applications of fold to xml transformation" > > In Guile these concepts are used not only for xml

Re: [racket-users] Re: [racket] Web Framework Benchmarks

2020-06-08 Thread Yury Bulka
Wow, from 695 requests per second to 49,516 is a huge improvement! Since we were comparing to django previously, it's now much closer with django (which does 78,132 rps.) Django also does run multiple worker processes (3 per cpu):

Re: [racket-users] Re: [racket] Web Framework Benchmarks

2020-06-08 Thread Stephen De Gabrielle
Thank you Bogdan! On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:39 PM Bogdan Popa wrote: > Small update on this: I've updated the benchmarks to run multiple Racket > processes with an Nginx load balancer in front. After some tuning[1], here > is what the results look like on my 12 core AMD Ryzen 9 3900 server: > >

[racket-users] First call for draft papers for IFL 2020 (Implementation and Application of Functional Languages)

2020-06-08 Thread Jurriaan Hage
Hello, Please, find below the final call for draft papers for IFL 2020. Please forward these to anyone you think may be interested. Apologies for any duplicates you may receive. best regards, Jurriaan Hage Publicity Chair of IFL

Re: [racket-users] Re: [racket] Web Framework Benchmarks

2020-06-08 Thread Alex Harsanyi
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 6:11:37 PM UTC+8, Yury Bulka wrote: > > Wow, from 695 requests per second to 49,516 is a huge improvement! > > Since we were comparing to django previously, it's now much closer with > django (which does 78,132 rps.) > I know very little about web development, so

Re: [racket-users] br-parser-tools question

2020-06-08 Thread Matthew Butterick
`br-parser-tools` has some patches needed to make `brag` work, e.g., using the srcloc structure. I forked rather than patch the underlying `parser-tools` package because I didn't want to destroy the fragile ancient artifact. I fixed a few bugs; the others persist. I notice, for example, that

Re: [racket-users] br-parser-tools question

2020-06-08 Thread Jon Stenerson
Thanks for confirming. I had actually started with the lexer-src-pos version but had other problems like exn:fail:read wanting a list of srclocs and the lexer only having positions. So I switched to lexer-srcpos which fixed the exception but broke the parse. Maybe I should do a conversion

[racket-users] br-parser-tools question

2020-06-08 Thread jon stenerson
Hi all, I don't understand the error message here. The parser seems to be looking for a position-token but the lexer is sending srcloc-tokens? Is there a simple fix? Using Racket 7.7 on WIn 10. I am also confused about whether to use br-parser-tools or parser-tools package. br-* is the more

Re: [racket-users] br-parser-tools question

2020-06-08 Thread Jon Zeppieri
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:36 PM jon stenerson wrote: > > Hi all, > > I don't understand the error message here. The parser seems to be > looking for a position-token but the lexer is sending srcloc-tokens? Is > there a simple fix? Using Racket 7.7 on WIn 10. Hi Jon, Yes, you're right, and there