On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 5:37:12 PM UTC-5, johnbclements wrote:
> > ...
> > Any thoughts from folks that are FFI'ing from/to Racket and/or using a
> > second language in the same system as Racket ?
>
> My “thoughts" are more along the lines of cheerleading. I worked on Hygiene
> for
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:40:32 AM UTC-5, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:01:02PM -0800, Brian Adkins wrote:
> > The more I dig into Racket, the more I like it. It seems like a perfect fit
> > for both my personality and the type of applications I am, and will be,
> >
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:01:02PM -0800, Brian Adkins wrote:
> The more I dig into Racket, the more I like it. It seems like a perfect fit
> for both my personality and the type of applications I am, and will be,
> writing. For the vast majority of what I need to do, it's a great fit.
>
> I do
Brian Adkins wrote on 11/19/2015 07:08 PM:
The example that provided the initial motivation is extremely simple - process
45M+ text records with some minor transformations (including computing a couple
soundex values on first/last names). Racket came in at 2.4x faster than Ruby,
but still CPU
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 5:37:12 PM UTC-5, johnbclements wrote:
> > Any thoughts from folks that are FFI'ing from/to Racket and/or using a
> > second language in the same system as Racket ?
>
> My “thoughts" are more along the lines of cheerleading. I worked on Hygiene
> for Rust, and
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 7:45:45 PM UTC-5, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote on 11/19/2015 07:08 PM:
> > The example that provided the initial motivation is extremely simple -
> > process 45M+ text records with some minor transformations (including
> > computing a couple soundex
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 6:25:19 PM UTC-5, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Brian,
>
> -- when you say "raw speed", do you need "Fortran" level speed for numerical
> algorithms or just "somewhat faster than Racket, almost close to C"? If it's
> the latter, Rust may work out for you.
I
Brian,
-- when you say "raw speed", do you need "Fortran" level speed for numerical
algorithms or just "somewhat faster than Racket, almost close to C"? If it's
the latter, Rust may work out for you.
-- when you say you need many cores for your computations. That sounds like
very-raw
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 9:56:01 PM UTC-5, gustavo wrote:
> > I did *some* hand optimizing. Here's the code for the soundex and some
> > string helper functions I created:
> >
> > https://gist.github.com/lojic/1deba97f2e2eb2fe3fc0
> >
>
> I'm optimistic and I think that there is still
> I did *some* hand optimizing. Here's the code for the soundex and some string
> helper functions I created:
>
> https://gist.github.com/lojic/1deba97f2e2eb2fe3fc0
>
I'm optimistic and I think that there is still some room for
micro-optimizations (for example, replace the set!'s, but I didn't
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 11:08:07 PM UTC-5, Brian Adkins wrote:
> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 9:56:01 PM UTC-5, gustavo wrote:
> > > I did *some* hand optimizing. Here's the code for the soundex and some
> > > string helper functions I created:
> > >
> > >
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 11:18:16 PM UTC-5, Brian Adkins wrote:
> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 11:08:07 PM UTC-5, Brian Adkins wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 9:56:01 PM UTC-5, gustavo wrote:
> > > > I did *some* hand optimizing. Here's the code for the soundex and some
12 matches
Mail list logo
