I just submitted new PR: https://github.com/jmoy/norvig-spell/pull/4
I moved `(in-value (substring rht 1))` so it's calculated only once. This change reduces the time in my machine from 14,4s to 13,3s. The new implementation has too many `in-value`. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have a alternative `for` family variant that assumes that every clause has a `in-value` unless it has a explicit `in-sequence` or `in-_something_`. I still think that the use of `(string (string-ref r ?))` are very inefficient, because they create strings that are almost immediately discarded. But all the alternatives I tried are slower. It's strange that `(substring r 1 2)` is slower than `(string (string-ref r 1))`. Gustavo On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya <[email protected]> wrote: > I have now tested using v 6.1.1 and the time does drop to 17s from the > earlier 24s though this still remains higher than Python's 13s. > > I have updated the GitHub README with the new numbers. > > Jyotirmoy > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Jan 5, 2015 4:14 AM, "Matthew Flatt" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > At Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:18:11 +0100, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote: >> > > > One possibility: Python hash tables are fast(er). >> > > >> > > That reminds me: I sped up `equal?` hash tables on strings in v6.1.1. >> > > >> > > If Jyotirmoy is using version v6.1 instead of v6.1.1, that could >> > > explain the time differences that he sees versus Greg's times. On my >> > > machine, I get 9.4s for v6.1.1 versus 13.5s for v6.1. >> > > >> > > >> > I am using v6.1. Will try to set up v6.1.1 and measure the timing. >> > >> > Jyotirmoy > > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
