On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Splitting this out because this is actually a different issue. This is >> about us generating slow contracts. >> >> There are two things in play here. >> >> One is that TR doesn't use the new lazy parts of struct/dc. This would >> require changing struct contracts from flat contracts to >> chaperone-contracts. Given that I think we are going to need to change >> struct contracts to sometimes be chaperone contracts anyways for >> soundness that might not be a huge loss. > I did performance measurements and it is about a factor of 60 slower > for lazy chaperone contracts. I see a couple of ways to improve these > numbers, so they could be better in the future with a bit more work on > optimizing. Given that strict contracts actually change the big O > notation I think that this is a reasonable performance price to pay, > given that data structures with more than 60 elements are fairly > common.
Does it make sense to try to find the break-even point for a program that, say, makes two passes over the data-structure? Robby _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
