Also, I think you'll generally find that TR performs better than plain Racket when you don't have to interoperate with Racket (i.e., no contracts).
Robby On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Vincent St-Amour <stamo...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:24:33 -0400, > Rickard Andersson wrote: >> >> With regards to the measurements; as is obvious from this mailchain, I >> know about and use the `time` form. It hasn't skewed the results. >> >> Using the optimizing coach in DrRacket has yielded no results, really. I >> tried using it and there wasn't any advice on what to do for speedups >> (unless that advice isn't very discoverable, I don't know.). >> >> The only meaningful difference I discovered for TR was using 6.1.1, as >> apparently there was an optimization that'd been borked for 6.2.0 and >> onwards. >> >> I'm still curious about speed-ups with TR. I had expected it to perform >> better than Racket, but I guess the big win is that you get contracts >> with better performance instead of much faster, brittle code? > > TR can perform better than plain Racket, but not always. TR mostly > performs local optimizations that remove dispatch / checks in various > operations, so only programs using these operations will see any > improvements. Areas where you can expect wins are float- and > complex-number-intensive computations, as well as some data structure > accesses. > > Vincent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
