I have a fast SSD, so that might be the difference. Sam
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ray Racine <[email protected]> wrote: > Oddly > > ray@rpr:~$ time racket r.rkt > > real 0m0.052s > user 0m0.040s > sys 0m0.012s > > ray@rpr:~$ time racket tr.rkt > > real 0m0.958s > user 0m0.876s > sys 0m0.080s > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Eastlund <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I see just under 5 seconds for test.rkt and just over 5 seconds for >> > utest.rkt. So there's a fraction of a second extra startup time for >> > Typed >> > Racket, but it takes less time for each subsequent computation, so the >> > difference depends on how much "real" work you do after startup. I >> > don't >> > know what causes that startup cost, but hopefully this kind of benchmark >> > will be useful to the Typed Racket maintainers in closing the gap for >> > future >> > versions. So, thanks for the example, Manfred! >> >> This is all true, and you can see it in simpler examples. The empty >> modules: >> >> #lang typed/racket/base >> >> and >> >> #lang racket/base >> >> have the following timings: >> >> [samth@hermes:~/tmp plt] time racket test.rkt >> >> real 0m0.592s >> user 0m0.516s >> sys 0m0.064s >> [samth@hermes:~/tmp plt] time racket test2.rkt >> >> real 0m0.065s >> user 0m0.040s >> sys 0m0.024s >> >> So you can see about 500 ms of extra overhead. Most of this time is in >> loading and executing the runtime dependencies of Typed Racket, which >> aren't used here, but which the implementation architecture of Typed >> Racket makes it basically impossible to reduce. We've worked hard to >> reduce this cost, but it's hard to go much further. >> >> Sam >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
